11–4–10 Vol. 75 No. 213 Thursday Nov. 4, 2010 Pages 67897–68168

11–4–10 Thursday Vol. 75 No. 213 Nov. 4, 2010

Pages 67897–68168

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:34 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\04NOWS.LOC 04NOWS hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS6 II Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records PUBLIC Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP currently on file for public inspection, see www.federalregister.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO USE IT authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, Federal Regulations. the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present: on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. 1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal The online edition of the Federal Register, www.gpoaccess.gov/ Register system and the public’s role in the develop- nara, available through GPO Access, is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the ment of regulations. official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 2. The relationship between the Federal Register and U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day Code of Federal Regulations. the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. 3. The important elements of typical Federal Register documents. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team, call toll free 1-888-293-6498; DC area 202- 4. An introduction to the finding aids of the FR/CFR sys- 512-1530; fax at 202-512-1262; or via e-mail at [email protected]. tem. The Support Team is available between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. WHY: To provide the public with access to information nec- Eastern Time, Monday–Friday, except official holidays. essary to research Federal agency regulations which di- The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper rectly affect them. There will be no discussion of spe- edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined cific agency regulations. Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal llllllllllllllllll Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half WHEN: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to 9 a.m.–12:30 p.m. orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, WHERE: Office of the Federal Register is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing Conference Room, Suite 700 less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; 800 North Capitol Street, NW. and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, Washington, DC 20002 including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable RESERVATIONS: (202) 741–6008 to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Printing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1- 866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 75 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:34 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\04NOWS.LOC 04NOWS hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS6 III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 213

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Agriculture Department Education Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES See Forest Service Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 67957–67958 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Employment and Training Administration Environmental Assessments; Availability: NOTICES Monsanto Co., and KWS SAAT AG, Supplemental Federal–State Unemployment Compensation Program: Request for Partial Deregulation of Sugar Beets Certifications for 2010 under the Federal Unemployment Genetically Engineered, etc., 67945–67946 Tax Act, 68001–68006 Energy Department Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Enforcement 67958

NOTICES Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Documents Prepared for Proposed Oil, Gas, PROPOSED RULES and Mineral Operations: Hazardous Waste Management System: Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region, Proposed Exclusion for Identifying and Listing Hazardous 67994–67997 Waste, 67919–67925 Regulation to Mitigate the Misfueling of Vehicles and Children and Families Administration Engines with Gasoline Containing Greater than Ten NOTICES Volume Percent Ethanol, etc., 68044–68091 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Clean Air Act Waiver Applications; Partial Grants and Submissions, and Approvals, 67976–67977 Partial Denials: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Growth Energy for Increase in Allowable Ethanol Content Submissions, and Approvals: of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the Developmental Disabilities Program Independent Administrator, 68094–68150 Evaluation Project, 67977–67978 Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits; Availability: Coast Guard Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, 67960– NOTICES 67962 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Draft NPDES General Permits for Discharges; Availability, Submissions, and Approvals, 67990–67992 etc: Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Works Commerce Department Treating Domestic Sewage in Massachusetts and New See International Trade Administration Hampshire, 67963 See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, 67963–67965 NOTICES Local Government Advisory Committee Members, 67965– Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 67966 Submissions, and Approvals, 67947–67948 Project Waiver of Buy American Requirement of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Town of Taos, NM, 67966–67967 NOTICES Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, Funding Availability: 67967–67968 Native American CDFI Assistance Program, 68026–68035 Settlements: Arkwright Dump Site, Spartanburg, Spartanburg County, Comptroller of the Currency SC, 67968 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Executive Office of the President Submissions, and Approvals, 68025–68026 See Presidential Documents Federal Aviation Administration Defense Department RULES See Navy Department Amendment of Class E Airspace: Charleston, SC, 67910–67911 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Jeannette, PA, 67911–67912 NOTICES NOTICES Extension of Time to Supplement Hearing Record, 67956 Airport Privatization Pilot Program, 68018

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\04NOCN.SGM 04NOCN hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS5 IV Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Contents

Meetings: Food and Drug Administration Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee, 68022 NOTICES Request for Members: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Submissions, and Approvals: Rulemaking Committee, 68023 Evaluation of Potential Data Sources for the Sentinel Requests for Changes in Use of Aeronautical Properties: Initiative, 67983 Louisville International Airport, Louisville, KY, 68024– Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data 68025 Submissions, 67983–67984 Importer’s Entry Notice, 67981–67983 Infant Formula Requirements, 67983 Federal Emergency Management Agency Restaurant Menu Labeling; Registration for Small Chains NOTICES Under Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Voluntary Private Sector Accreditation and Certification Affordable Care Act of 2010, 67978–67981 Preparedness Program, 67992 Generic Drug User Fee, 67984–67985 Guidance for Industry; Availability: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Cellular Therapy for Cardiac Disease, 67987–67988 NOTICES Applications: Foreign Assets Control Office Wagon Wheel Associates, 67959–67960 RULES Compliance Filings: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, 67912–67918 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 67960 Filings: Forest Service Southeastern Power Administration, 67960 NOTICES Meetings: Gallatin County Resource Advisory Committee, 67946– Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 67947 NOTICES Idaho Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee, 67947 Meetings: Appraisal Subcommittee, 67968–67969 Health and Human Services Department See Children and Families Administration Federal Highway Administration See Food and Drug Administration NOTICES See National Institutes of Health Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in NOTICES Illinois, 68022 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 67975–67976

Federal Maritime Commission Homeland Security Department NOTICES See Coast Guard An Analysis of the E.U. Repeal of the Liner Conference See Federal Emergency Management Agency Block Exemption, 67970–67973 RULES Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licenses; Applicants, Privacy Act; Implementation of Exemptions: 67973–67974 Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licenses; Reissuances, General – 002 Investigative Records System of 67974 Records, 67909–67910 Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licenses; Revocations, NOTICES 67974–67975 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Infrastructure Protection Stakeholder Input Project, Federal Railroad Administration 67989–67990 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Housing and Urban Development Department Ohio 3C Quick Start Passenger Rail, 68021–68022 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Federal Reserve System Submissions, and Approvals: NOTICES HUD Stakeholder Survey, 67992–67993 Changes in Bank Control: Interior Department Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 67969 See Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Enforcement Holding Companies, 67969–67970 See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service See Reclamation Bureau PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: International Trade Administration 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium wrightii NOTICES (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments, Threatened, 67925–67944 67949–67950

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\04NOCN.SGM 04NOCN hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Contents V

Consolidated Decisions on Applications for Duty-Free Entry National Park Service of Electron Microscopes: NOTICES National Institutes of Health, et al., 67950 Inventory Completions: Decisions on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Anthropological Studies Center, Archaeological Instruments: Collections Facility, Sonoma State University, University of Georgia, et al., 67950 Rohnert Park, CA, 67999–68000 Forest Service, Chattahoochee–Oconee National Forests, International Trade Commission Gainesville, GA, 67998–67999 NOTICES Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest, Escanaba, MI, Complaints: et al., 68000 Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software, 68000– Western Michigan University, Anthropology Department, 68001 Kalamazoo, MI, 67998 Justice Department NOTICES National Science Foundation Lodging of Settlement Agreements under CERCLA and NOTICES Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Correction, Meetings: 68001 Business and Operations Advisory Committee, 68008 Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration Navy Department See Veterans Employment and Training Service NOTICES Meetings: Land Management Bureau Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel, 67956–67957 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona NOTICES Counties, WY; Correction, 67997 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Maritime Administration Submissions, and Approvals, 68008 NOTICES Office of New Reactors; Final Staff Guidance; Availability: Capital Construction Fund and Cargo Preference Programs: Standard Review Plan Section 13.6.2, Revision 1 on Determination of Foreign Reconstruction or Rebuilding of Physical Security; Design Certification, 68009 U.S.-Built Vessels, 68019–68020 Standard Review Plan Section 13.6.3, Revision 1 on Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Physical Security – Early Site Permit, 68009 Laws, 68023–68024 Office of New Reactors; Final Staff Guidances; Availability: Standard Review Plan, Section 13.6.1, Revision 1 on National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Physical Security; Combined License and Operating NOTICES Reactors, 68009–68010 Meetings: National Council on the Humanities, 68007–68008 Personnel Management Office National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: NOTICES Federal Salary Council, 68010 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 67985–67987 Meetings: Presidential Documents Center for Scientific Review, 67988 PROCLAMATIONS National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Special Observances: Skin Diseases, 67989 Military Family Month (Proc. 8590), 67897–67898 National Adoption Month (Proc. 8597), 68166–68167 National Labor Relations Board National Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month (Proc. NOTICES 8591), 67899–67900 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 68008 National Diabetes Month (Proc. 8592), 67901–67902 National Family Caregivers Month (Proc. 8593), 67903– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 67904 NOTICES National Hospice Month (Proc. 8594), 67905–67906 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, National Native American Heritage Month (Proc. 8595), Submissions, and Approvals: 67907–67908 Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, 67948– Trade: 67949 Bahrain–U.S. Free Trade Agreement and Caribbean Basin U.S.–Canada Albacore Treaty Reporting System, 67948 Economic Recovery Act; Adjustments and Designation of the Lake Superior National Estuarine Modifications (Proc. 8596), 68151–68165 Research Reserve in Wisconsin, 67950–67951 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Public Debt Bureau Piling and Structure Removal in Woodard Bay Natural NOTICES Resources Conservation Area, Washington, 67951– Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 67956 Submissions, and Approvals, 68026

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\04NOCN.SGM 04NOCN hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS5 VI Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Contents

Reclamation Bureau Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES NOTICES Draft Reports; Availability: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Submissions, and Approvals: Reclamation Facilities, 67993–67994 Application for Reinstatement; Insurance Lapsed More than 6 Months; etc., 68038–68039 Securities and Exchange Commission Application for Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance, NOTICES 68036–68037 Applications for Deregistration under Section 8(f) of the Application for Supplemental Service Disabled Veterans Investment Company Act of 1940, 68010–68012 Insurance, 68037–68039 Registration Cancellations of Certain Transfer Agents, Evidence for Transfer of Entitlement of Education 68012–68013 Benefits, 68035–68036 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Government Life Insurance, 68036 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 68015–68017 Insurance Lapsed More than 6 Months; Non Medical – Depository Trust Co., 68013–68014 Comparative Health Statement, 68037 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 68014–68015 Matured Endowment Notification, 68039–68040 Pay Now Enter Info Page, 68040–68041 State Department Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Statement, 68038, NOTICES 68040 Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organization: Jundallah, a.k.a. People’s Resistance Movement of Iran, Veterans Employment and Training Service etc., 68017 NOTICES Designations as Specially Designated Global Terrorist: Meetings: Jundallah, a.k.a. People’s Resistance Movement of Iran, Advisory Committee on Veterans’ Employment, Training etc., 68017 and Employer Outreach, 68007

Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Separate Parts In This Issue Corporate Family Transaction Exemptions: Watco Holdings, Inc., Watco Companies, Inc., and Watco Part II Transportation, 68020–68021 Environmental Protection Agency, 68044–68091 Part III Transportation Department Environmental Protection Agency, 68094–68150 See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration Part IV See Federal Railroad Administration Presidential Documents, 68151–68167 See Maritime Administration See Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Meetings: Reader Aids Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for Subcommittee, 68017–68018 phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. Treasury Department To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents See Community Development Financial Institutions Fund LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// See Comptroller of the Currency listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list See Foreign Assets Control Office archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change See Public Debt Bureau settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\04NOCN.SGM 04NOCN hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

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

3 CFR Proclamations: 8590...... 67897 8591...... 67899 8592...... 67901 8593...... 67903 8594...... 67905 8595...... 67907 8596...... 68153 8597...... 68167 6 CFR 5...... 67909 14 CFR 71 (2 documents) ...... 67910, 67911 31 CFR 510...... 67912 40 CFR Proposed Rules: 80...... 68044 261...... 67919 50 CFR Proposed Rules: 17...... 67925

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:35 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\04NOLS.LOC 04NOLS hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4 67897

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 75, No. 213

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Title 3— Proclamation 8590 of October 29, 2010

The President Military Family Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

We owe each day of security and freedom that we enjoy to the members of our Armed Forces and their families. Behind our brave service men and women, there are family members and loved ones who share in their sacrifice and provide unending support. During Military Family Month, we celebrate the exceptional contributions of our military families, and we reaffirm our commitments to these selfless individuals who exemplify the highest principles of our Nation. Across America, military families inspire us all with their courage, strength, and deep devotion to our country. They endure the challenges of multiple deployments and moves; spend holidays and life milestones apart; juggle everyday tasks while a spouse, parent, son, or daughter is in harm’s way; and honor the service of their loved ones and the memory of those lost. Just as we hold a sacred trust to the extraordinary Americans willing to lay down their lives to protect us all, we also have a national commitment to support and engage our military families. They are proud to serve our country; yet, they face unique challenges because of that service. My Admin- istration has taken important steps to help them shoulder their sacrifice, and we are working to ensure they have the resources to care for themselves and the tools to reach their dreams. We are working to improve family resilience, enhance the educational experience of military children, and ensure military spouses have employment and advancement opportunities, despite the relocations and deployment cycles of military life. Our historic investment to build a 21st-century Department of Veterans Affairs is helping to provide our veterans with the benefits and care they have earned. We are also standing with our service members and their families as they transition back into civilian life, providing counseling as well as job training and placement. And, through the Post-9/11 GI Bill, our veterans and their families can pursue the dream of higher education. However, Government can only do so much. While only a fraction of Ameri- cans are in military families, all of us share in the responsibility of caring for our military families and veterans, and all sectors of our society are better off when we reach out and work together to support these patriots. By offering job opportunities and workplace flexibility, businesses and companies can benefit from the unparalleled dedication and skills of a service member or military spouse. Through coordination with local community groups, individuals and organizations can ensure our military families have the help they need and deserve when a loved one is deployed. Even the smallest actions by neighbors and friends send a large message of profound gratitude to the families who risk everything to see us safe and free. As America asks ever more of military families, they have a right to expect more of us—it is our national challenge and moral obligation to uphold that promise. If we hold ourselves to the same high standard of excellence our military families live by every day, we will realize the vision of an America that supports and engages these heroes now and for decades to come.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:50 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD0.SGM 04NOD0 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 67898 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2010 as Military Family Month. I call on all Americans to honor military families through private actions and public service for the tremendous contributions they make in support of our service members and our Nation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty- fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010–28061 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:50 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD0.SGM 04NOD0 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES OB#1.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 67899 Presidential Documents

Proclamation 8591 of October 29, 2010

National Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Alzheimer’s disease tragically robs individuals of their memories and leads to progressive mental and physical impairments. This eventually fatal disease represents a serious and growing threat to the health of our Nation, impacting millions of Americans and their families. During National Alzheimer’s Dis- ease Awareness Month, we recommit to improving its detection and treatment, finding a cure, and standing with all whose lives are affected by this terrible disease. As we continue our fight against Alzheimer’s disease, we must seek new ways to prevent, delay, and treat this disease. Through the American Recov- ery and Reinvestment Act, we are boosting funding for promising research on risk factors, on improving diagnostic tools and therapies, and in identifying new preventive measures. This year’s landmark Affordable Care Act also makes important progress for those living with Alzheimer’s disease, as well as their loved ones and caretakers. This legislation establishes the Cures Acceleration Network, which will advance cutting-edge research, aid in the development of highly needed cures, and reduce barriers between laboratory discoveries and clinical trials for debilitating and life-threatening conditions like Alzheimer’s disease. The Affordable Care Act seeks to improve care by training nursing home workers who care for residents with dementia and establishes the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program, a new national long- term care insurance option. This legislation also provides Medicare bene- ficiaries with free annual wellness visits to increase the likelihood of early cognitive impairment detection, allowing patients and families to better plan for care needs. And by 2014, Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease and other pre-existing conditions will not have to worry about having their insurance coverage discontinued or denied. The human cost of Alzheimer’s disease is staggering. We can—and must— come together to address this growing health challenge. Caring for a person with Alzheimer’s disease is a full-time, non-stop job, and this month, we also honor the compassionate caregivers and medical professionals who provide endless comfort and attention to those facing Alzheimer’s disease. Until we find more effective treatments and a cure, we must continue to support both Alzheimer’s disease research and the caregivers and victims of this devastating disease. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2010 as National Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month. I call upon the people of the United States to learn more about Alzheimer’s disease and what they can do to support their families, friends, and neighbors who care for those with the disease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:51 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD1.SGM 04NOD1 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 67900 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty- fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010–28062 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:51 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD1.SGM 04NOD1 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES OB#1.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 67901 Presidential Documents

Proclamation 8592 of October 29, 2010

National Diabetes Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Today, nearly 24 million Americans have diabetes, and thousands more are diagnosed each day. During National Diabetes Month, we recommit to educating Americans about the risk factors and warning signs of diabetes, and we honor all those living with or lost to this disease. Diabetes can lead to severe health problems and complications such as heart disease, stroke, vision loss, kidney disease, nerve damage, and amputa- tion. Type 1 diabetes, which can occur at any age but is most often diagnosed in young people, is managed by a lifetime of regular medication or insulin treatment. Type 2 diabetes is far more common, and the number of people developing or at elevated risk for the disease is growing at an alarming rate, including among our Nation’s children. Risk is highest among individuals over the age of 45, particularly those who are overweight, inactive, or have a family history of the disease, as well as among certain racial and minority groups. While less prevalent, gestational diabetes in expectant mothers may lead to a more complicated or dangerous delivery, and can contribute to their child’s obesity later in life. With more Americans becoming affected by diabetes and its consequences every day, our Nation must work together to better prevent, manage, and treat this disease in all its variations. Obesity is one of the most significant risk factors for Type 2 diabetes. National Diabetes Month gives Americans an opportunity to redouble their efforts to reduce their chances of developing Type 2 diabetes by engaging in regular physical activity, maintaining a healthy weight, and making nutritious food choices. For people already living with diabetes, these lifestyle changes can help with the management of this disease, and delay or prevent complications. We must also do more to reverse the climbing rates of childhood obesity so all America’s children can grow into healthy, happy, and active adults. Through her ‘‘Let’s Move!’’ initiative, First Lady Michelle Obama is helping to lead an Administration-wide effort to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity within a generation. ‘‘Let’s Move!’’ promotes nutritious foods and physical activities that lead to life-long healthy habits. I encourage all parents, educators, and concerned Americans to visit www.LetsMove.gov for more information and resources on making healthy choices for our children. The new health insurance reform law, the Affordable Care Act, adds a number of tools for reversing the increase in diabetes and caring for those facing this disease. Insurance companies are no longer able to deny health coverage or exclude benefits for children due to a pre-existing condition, including diabetes. This vital protection will apply to all Americans by 2014. Also, all new health plans and Medicare must now provide diabetes screenings free of charge to patients, and Medicare covers the full cost of medical nutritional therapy to help seniors manage diabetes. This landmark new law also requires most chain restaurants to clearly post nutritional information on their menus, ensuring that Americans have consistent facts about food choices and can make more informed, healthier selections.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:52 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD2.SGM 04NOD2 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 67902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

In recognition of National Diabetes Month, I commend those bravely fighting this disease; the families and friends who support them; and the health care providers, researchers, and advocates working to reduce this disease’s impact on our Nation. Together, we can take the small steps that lead to big rewards—a healthier future for our citizens and our Nation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2010 as National Diabetes Month. I call upon all Americans, school systems, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, health care providers, and research institutions to join in activities that raise diabetes awareness and help prevent, treat, and manage the disease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty- fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010–28064 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:52 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD2.SGM 04NOD2 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES OB#1.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 67903 Presidential Documents

Proclamation 8593 of October 29, 2010

National Family Caregivers Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Every day, family members, friends, neighbors, and concerned individuals across America provide essential attention and assistance to their loved ones. Many individuals in need of care—including children, elders, and persons with disabilities—would have difficulty remaining safely in their homes and community without the support of their relatives and caregivers. Caregivers often look after multiple generations of family members. Their efforts are vital to the quality of life of countless American seniors, bringing comfort and friendship to these treasured citizens. However, this labor of love can result in physical, psychological, and financial hardship for caregivers, and research suggests they often put their own health and well- being at risk while assisting loved ones. Through the National Family Care- giver Support Program, individuals can help their loved ones remain com- fortably in the home and receive assistance with their caregiving responsibilities. This program provides information, assistance, counseling, training, support groups, and respite care for caregivers across our country. My Administration’s Middle Class Task Force, led by Vice President Joe Biden, has made supporting family caregivers a priority, and we are working to assist caregivers as they juggle work, filial, and financial responsibilities. We made important progress with this year’s Affordable Care Act, and because of this landmark legislation, Americans will be able to take advantage of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program. This voluntary insurance program will help individuals with long-term care needs to maintain independent living, as well as compensate family caregivers for their devoted work. Our businesses and companies can also contribute to families’ ability to care for their loved ones in need. By offering flexible work arrangements and paid leave when caregiving duties require employees to miss work, employers can enable workers with caregiver responsibilities to balance work and family obligations more easily. Such efforts impact countless lives across our Nation, easing concerns and contributing to the well-being of individuals and families as they go about their daily lives. During National Family Caregivers Month, we honor the millions of Ameri- cans who give endlessly of themselves to provide for the health and well- being of a beloved family member. Through their countless hours of service to their families and communities, they are a shining example of our Nation’s great capacity to care for each other. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2010 as National Family Caregivers Month. I encourage all Americans to pay tribute to those who provide care for their family members, friends, and neighbors in need.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:53 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD3.SGM 04NOD3 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 67904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty- fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010–28078 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:53 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD3.SGM 04NOD3 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES OB#1.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 67905 Presidential Documents

Proclamation 8594 of October 29, 2010

National Hospice Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation During National Hospice Month, we recognize the dignity hospice care can provide to patients who need it most, and the professionals, volunteers, and family members who bring peace to individuals in their final days. Hospice care gives medical services, emotional support, and spiritual resources to people facing life-limiting illnesses. It can also help families and caregivers manage the details and emotional challenges of caring for a dying loved one. The decision to place someone into a hospice program can be difficult, but Americans can have peace of mind knowing the doctors and professionals involved with these services are trained to administer high-quality and comprehensive care for terminally ill individuals. As many of our Nation’s veterans age and cope with illness, hospice and palliative care can also provide tailored support to meet the needs of these heroes. The Affordable Care Act signed into law this year protects and expands hospice services covered under Federal health care programs. Prior to its enactment, the prohibition on concurrent care for Federal health care programs meant patients could not receive hospice care before first discontinuing treatments to cure their disease. The Affordable Care Act permanently eliminates this prohibition for children enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and creates demonstration projects to test how the elimination of the concurrent care prohibition would impact Medicare. As a result, fewer children, seniors, and families will have to make the heart-rending choice between coverage that fights an illness and coverage that provides needed comfort. All Americans should take comfort in the important work of hospice care, which enables individuals to carry on their lives, in spite of a terminal illness. During this month, let us recognize those who allow the terminally ill to receive comfortable and dignified care. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2010 as National Hospice Month. I encourage citizens, medical institutions, government and social service agencies, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other interested groups to join in activities that promote awareness of the important role of hospice care.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:54 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD4.SGM 04NOD4 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 67906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

[FR Doc. 2010–28082 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:54 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD4.SGM 04NOD4 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES OB#1.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 67907 Presidential Documents

Proclamation 8595 of October 29, 2010

National Native American Heritage Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

For millennia before Europeans settled in North America, the indigenous peoples of this continent flourished with vibrant cultures and were the original stewards of the land. From generation to generation, they handed down invaluable cultural knowledge and rich traditions, which continue to thrive in Native American communities across our country today. During National Native American Heritage Month, we honor and celebrate their importance to our great Nation and our world. America’s journey has been marked both by bright times of progress and dark moments of injustice for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Since the birth of America, they have contributed immeasurably to our country and our heritage, distinguishing themselves as scholars, artists, entrepreneurs, and leaders in all aspects of our society. Native Americans have also served in the United States Armed Forces with honor and distinction, defending the security of our Nation with their lives. Yet, our tribal communities face stark realities, including disproportionately high rates of poverty, unemployment, crime, and disease. These disparities are unacceptable, and we must acknowledge both our history and our current challenges if we are to ensure that all of our children have an equal opportunity to pursue the American dream. From upholding the tribal sovereignty recognized and reaffirmed in our Constitution and laws to strengthening our unique nation- to-nation relationship, my Administration stands firm in fulfilling our Na- tion’s commitments. Over the past 2 years, we have made important steps towards working as partners with Native Americans to build sustainable and healthy native communities. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act continues to impact the lives of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including through important projects to improve, rebuild, and renovate schools so our children can get the education and skills they will need to compete in the global economy. At last year’s White House Tribal Nations Conference, I also announced a new consultation process to improve communication and coordination between the Federal Government and tribal governments. This year, I was proud to sign the landmark Affordable Care Act, which permanently reauthorized the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, a corner- stone of health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives. This vital legislation will help modernize the Indian health care system and improve health care for 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. To combat the high rates of crime and sexual violence in Native communities, I signed the Tribal Law and Order Act in July to bolster tribal law enforcement and enhance their abilities to prosecute and fight crime more effectively. And, recently, my Administration reached a settlement in a lawsuit brought by Native American farmers against the United States Department of Agri- culture that underscores our commitment to treat all our citizens fairly. As we celebrate the contributions and heritage of Native Americans during this month, we also recommit to supporting tribal self-determination, security, and prosperity for all Native Americans. While we cannot erase the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:54 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD5.SGM 04NOD5 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 67908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

scourges or broken promises of our past, we will move ahead together in writing a new, brighter chapter in our joint history. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2010 as National Native American Heritage Month. I call upon all Americans to commemorate this month with appropriate programs and activities, and to celebrate November 26, 2010, as Native American Heritage Day. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty- fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010–28088 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:54 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD5.SGM 04NOD5 rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES OB#1.EPS 67909

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 213

Thursday, November 4, 2010

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Register, 74 FR 55482, October 28, 2009, In the case of access requests from the contains regulatory documents having general proposing to exempt portions of the DHS/OIG–002 Investigative Records applicability and legal effect, most of which system of records from one or more System of Records, each access request are keyed to and codified in the Code of provisions of the Privacy Act because of will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis Federal Regulations, which is published under criminal, civil, and administrative and if no harm to law enforcement 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. enforcement requirements. The system interests or national security would The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by of records is the DHS/OIG–002 ensue from disclosure, the exemption the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Investigative Records System of may be waived and the records (or new books are listed in the first FEDERAL Records. The DHS/OIG–002 portions of the records) may be REGISTER issue of each week. Investigative Records System of Records disclosed. notice was published concurrently in In the case of amendment requests the Federal Register, 74 FR 55569, from the DHS/OIG–002 Investigative DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND October 28, 2009, and comments were Records System of Records, such SECURITY invited on both the Notice of Proposed requests would impose an impossible Rulemaking (NPRM) and System of administrative burden by requiring Office of the Secretary Records Notice (SORN). investigations to be continuously Public Comments reinvestigated and could disclose 6 CFR Part 5 security-sensitive information that [Docket No. DHS–2010–0082] DHS received one comment on the could be detrimental to homeland NPRM and no comments on the SORN. security; therefore, the exemption from Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of NPRM amendment requests is necessary. Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector The one comment received on the SORN NPRM noted the inability to correct General–002 Investigative Records No SORN comments were received. personal information contained within System of Records After consideration of public the DHS/OIG–002 Investigative Records comments, the Department will AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS. System of Records and the inability to implement the rulemaking as proposed. ACTION: Final rule. obtain legal and/or civil remedy to dispute incorrect information contained List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland within the system of records. The Freedom of information; Privacy. Security is issuing a final rule to amend commenter acknowledged that the ■ its regulations to exempt portions of an overall exemptions DHS seeks from the For the reasons stated in the preamble, updated and reissued system of records Privacy Act are necessary and consistent DHS amends Chapter I of Title 6, Code titled, ‘‘Department of Homeland with common exemptions sought by law of Federal Regulations, as follows: Security Office of the Inspector enforcement agencies nationally. PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS General—002 Investigative Records However, the commenter expressed AND INFORMATION System of Records’’ from one or more concern with the exemptions in provisions of the Privacy Act because of subsection (e)(5) of the Privacy Act ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 5 criminal, civil, and administrative (Collection of Information), coupled continues to read as follows: with exemption in subsection (g). The enforcement requirements. Authority: 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is commenter stated that information 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. effective November 4, 2010. contained in a file that is inaccurate Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. should not be in that file when the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a. effects could damage that individual. general questions please contact: ■ 2. In Appendix C to Part 5, revise The commenter stated that on a case-by- Melinda D. Holliday McDonald, Esq. paragraph ‘‘5’’ to read as follows: case basis there must be an opportunity (202–254–4284), Privacy Officer, Office to remedy incomplete and irrelevant Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of of the Inspector General, Mail Stop information to make that person’s Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 2600, 245 Murray Drive, SW., Building character whole. 410, Washington, DC 20528; or by * * * * * DHS/OIG believes that there is a need 5. The DHS/OIG–002 Investigative Records facsimile (202) 254–4299. For privacy for the exemptions provided for in this issues please contact: Mary Ellen System of Records consists of electronic and document. However, DHS/OIG paper records used by the DHS OIG. The Callahan (703–235–0780), Chief Privacy recognizes that there may be instances DHS/OIG–002 Investigative Records System Officer, Privacy Office, Department of where such exemptions can be waived of Records is a repository of information held Homeland Security, Washington, DC as stated in the NPRM and implemented by DHS in connection with its several and 20528. in the Final Rule. In appropriate varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with, or criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and Background proceedings there under; and national adversely affect, the law enforcement security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ The Department of Homeland and national security purposes of the OIG–002 Investigative Records System of Security (DHS) Office of Inspector system and the overall law enforcement Records contains information that is General (OIG) published a notice of and security process, the applicable collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or proposed rulemaking in the Federal exemptions may be waived. in cooperation with DHS components and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 67910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

may contain personally identifiable subject as to the nature or existence of an Dated: October 6, 2010. information collected by other federal, state, investigation, thereby interfering with the Mary Ellen Callahan, local, tribal, foreign, or international related investigation and law enforcement Chief Privacy Officer, Department of government agencies. The Secretary of activities. Homeland Security. Homeland Security has exempted this system (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to from the following provisions of the Privacy Subjects) because providing such detailed [FR Doc. 2010–27830 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 information would impede law enforcement BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), in that it could compromise investigations (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5) and (e)(8); (f); by: revealing the existence of an otherwise and (g) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). confidential investigation and thereby DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland providing an opportunity for the subject of an Security has exempted this system from the investigation to conceal evidence, alter Federal Aviation Administration following provisions of the Privacy Act, patterns of behavior, or take other actions subject to limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. that could thwart investigative efforts; 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H); and revealing the identity of witnesses in 14 CFR Part 71 (f) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) and investigations thereby providing an [Docket No. FAA–2010–0817; Airspace (k)(5). Exemptions from these particular opportunity for the subjects of the Docket No. 10–ASO–31] subsections are justified, on a case-by-case investigations or others to harass, intimidate, basis to be determined at the time a request or otherwise interfere with the collection of Amendment of Class E Airspace; is made, for the following reasons: evidence or other information from such Charleston, SC (a) From subsection (c)(3) and (c)(4) witnesses; or revealing the identity of (Accounting for Disclosures) because release confidential informants, which would AGENCY: Federal Aviation of the accounting of disclosures could alert negatively affect the informants’ usefulness Administration (FAA), DOT. the subject of an investigation of an actual or in any ongoing or future investigations and potential criminal, civil, or regulatory discourage members of the public from ACTION: Final rule. violation, to the existence of the cooperating as confidential informants in any SUMMARY: investigation; and reveal investigative future investigations. This action amends Class E interest on the part of DHS as well as the (f) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) Airspace at Charleston, SC, by removing recipient agency. Disclosure of the (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency the East Cooper Airport from the accounting would therefore present a serious Rules), because portions of this system are airspace description. The East Cooper impediment to law enforcement efforts and/ exempt from the individual access provisions Airport has been renamed Mt. Pleasant or efforts to preserve national security. of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, Regional Airport-Faison Field, Mt. Disclosure of the accounting would also and therefore DHS is not required to establish Pleasant, SC, and established under permit the individual who is the subject of rules or procedures with respect to such separate rulemaking. This amendment is access. Providing notice to individuals with a record to impede the investigation, tamper necessary for the safe navigation of our with witnesses or evidence, and avoid respect to existence of records pertaining to detection or apprehension, which would them in this system of records or otherwise National Airspace System. undermine the entire investigative process. setting up procedures pursuant to which DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 6, (b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) individuals may access and view records 2010. The Director of the Federal because access to the records contained in pertaining to themselves in the system would Register approves this incorporation by this system of records could inform the undermine investigative efforts and reveal reference action under title 1, Code of subject of an investigation of an actual or the identities of witnesses, potential witnesses, and confidential informants. Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to potential criminal, civil, or regulatory the annual revision of FAA Order violation, to the existence of the (g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of investigation, and reveal investigative Information) because in the collection of 7400.9 and publication of conforming interest on the part of DHS or another agency. information for law enforcement purposes it amendments. is impossible to determine in advance what Access to the records could permit the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information is accurate, relevant, timely, and individual who is the subject of a record to Melinda Giddens, Operations Support impede the investigation, tamper with complete. Compliance with (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal witnesses or evidence, and avoid detection or Aviation Administration, P.O. Box apprehension. Amendment of the records investigative training and exercise of good could interfere with ongoing investigations judgment to both conduct and report on 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; and law enforcement activities and would investigations. telephone (404) 305–5610. impose an impossible administrative burden (h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: by requiring investigations to be Individuals) because compliance would continuously reinvestigated. In addition, interfere with DHS’ ability to obtain, serve, History and issue subpoenas, warrants and other law permitting access and amendment to such The airspace description for information could disclose security-sensitive enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal, and could result in disclosure of Charleston, SC, is a combination of the information that could be detrimental to Charleston AFB/International Airport, homeland security. investigative techniques, procedures, and (c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and evidence. the Charleston Executive Airport, and Necessity of Information) because in the (i) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to the East Cooper Airport. The East course of investigations into potential the extent that the system is exempt from Cooper Airport has been renamed Mt. violations of federal law, the accuracy of other specific subsections of the Privacy Act Pleasant Regional Airport-Faison Field, information obtained or introduced relating to individuals’ rights to access and Mt. Pleasant, SC, and separate occasionally may be unclear or the amend their records contained in the system. rulemaking has been established for the Therefore, DHS is not required to establish information may not be strictly relevant or airport (75 FR 16335). To eliminate necessary to a specific investigation. In the rules or procedures pursuant to which individuals may seek a civil remedy for the confusion, all references to the East interests of effective law enforcement, it is Cooper Airport is being removed from appropriate to retain all information that may agency’s refusals to amend a record; refusal aid in establishing patterns of unlawful to comply with a request for access to the legal description of Class E airspace, activity. records; failure to maintain accurate, Charleston, SC. relevant, timely, and complete records; or (d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of The Rule Information from Individuals) because failure to otherwise comply with an requiring that information be collected from individual’s right to access or amend records. This amendment to Title 14, Code of the subject of an investigation would alert the * * * * * Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67911

amends the Class E airspace extending PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, action under title 1, Code of Federal upward from 700 feet above the surface B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR Regulations, part 51, subject to the at Charleston, SC, by removing the East TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 Cooper Airport from the legal REPORTING POINTS and publication of conforming description. Since this is an amendments. administrative change that does not ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 71 involve a change in the dimensions or continues to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Horrocks, Operations Support operating requirements for that airspace, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, notice and public procedures under 5 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. 1963 Comp., p. 389. Aviation Administration, P.O. Box The Class E airspace designations are 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; § 71.1 [Amended] published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA telephone (404) 305–5588. order 7400.9U, signed August 18, 2010, ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and effective September 15, 2010, which 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation History is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Administration Order 7400.9U, 71.1. The Class E airspace designations Airspace Designations and Reporting The Point in Space in the legal listed in this document will be Points, signed August 18, 2010, and description of the Class E airspace area published subsequently in the Order. effective September 15, 2010, is for Jeannette, PA serves both the The FAA has determined that this amended as follows: Monsour Medical Center Heliport and regulation only involves an established Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas the Jeannette District Hospital Heliport. body of technical regulations for which extending upward from 700 feet or more The FAA is removing reference only to frequent and routine amendments are above the surface of the earth. the Jeannette District Hospital Heliport. necessary to keep them operationally * * * * * This change does not affect the current, is non-controversial and boundaries, altitudes, or operating ASO SC E5 Charleston, SC [Amended] unlikely to result in adverse or negative requirements of the airspace, therefore, comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a Charleston AFB/International Airport, SC ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ notice and public procedures under ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under (Lat. 32 53 56 N., long. 80 02 26 W.) 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Charleston Executive Airport (Lat. 32°42′04″ N., long. 80°00′09″ W.) ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory The Rule That airspace extending upward from 700 Policies and Procedures feet above the surface within a 10-mile radius This amendment to Title 14, Code of (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and of Charleston AFB/International Airport and Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 (3) does not warrant preparation of a within a 7-mile radius of Charleston amends the Class E airspace extending Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated Executive Airport. upward from 700 feet above the surface impact is so minimal. Since this is a Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October at Jeannette, PA, by removing the routine matter that will only affect air 19, 2010. Jeannette District Hospital Heliport traffic procedures and air navigation, it Mark D. Ward, reference from the legal description. The is certified that this rule, when Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Point in Space within the legal promulgated, will not have a significant Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. description will continue to serve economic impact on a substantial [FR Doc. 2010–27647 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Monsour Medical Center Heliport. number of small entities under the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P The Class E airspace designations are criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA The FAA’s authority to issue rules order 7400.9U, signed August 18, 2010, regarding aviation safety is found in DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and effective September 15, 2010, which Title 49 of the United States Code. is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the Federal Aviation Administration 71.1. The Class E airspace designations authority of the FAA Administrator. listed in this document will be Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 14 CFR Part 71 published subsequently in the Order. describes in more detail the scope of the [Docket No. FAA–2010–0052; Airspace The FAA has determined that this agency’s authority. Docket No. 10–AEA–19] This rulemaking is promulgated regulation only involves an established under the authority described in body of technical regulations for which Amendment of Class E Airspace; frequent and routine amendments are Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section Jeannette, PA 40103. Under that section, the FAA is necessary to keep them operationally charged with prescribing regulations to AGENCY: Federal Aviation current, is non-controversial and assign the use of airspace necessary to Administration (FAA), DOT. unlikely to result in adverse or negative ensure the safety of aircraft and the ACTION: Final rule. comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a efficient use of airspace. This regulation ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under SUMMARY: is within the scope of that authority as This action amends Class E Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a it amends controlled airspace at Airspace at Jeannette, PA. Jeannette ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Charleston, SC. District Hospital will no longer be using Policies and Procedures the heliport therefore reference to the (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Jeannette District Hospital Heliport in (3) does not warrant preparation of a Airspace, Incorporation by reference, the legal description is being removed. Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated Navigation (air). The boundaries, altitudes and operating impact is so minimal. Since this is a requirements will not change. routine matter that will only affect air Adoption of the Amendment DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 6, traffic procedures and air navigation, it In consideration of the foregoing, the 2010. is certified that this rule, when Federal Aviation Administration The Director of the Federal Register promulgated, will not have a significant amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: approves this incorporation by reference economic impact on a substantial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 67912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

number of small entities under the Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October issued Executive Order 13466 (73 FR criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 19, 2010. 36787, June 27, 2008) (‘‘E.O. 13466’’). On The FAA’s authority to issue rules Mark D. Ward, August 30, 2010, the President, invoking regarding aviation safety is found in Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern the authority of, inter alia, IEEPA, the Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. Title 49 of the United States Code. NEA, and section 5 of the United [FR Doc. 2010–27644 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 287c), issued Executive Order 13551 (75 authority of the FAA Administrator. FR 53837, September 1, 2010) (‘‘E.O. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 13551’’), effective at 12:01 p.m. eastern describes in more detail the scope of the daylight time on August 30, 2010. agency’s authority. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The Department of the Treasury’s This rulemaking is promulgated Office of Foreign Assets Control Office of Foreign Assets Control is under the authority described in issuing the North Korea Sanctions Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 31 CFR Part 510 Regulations, 31 CFR part 510 (the 40103. Under that section, the FAA is ‘‘Regulations’’), to implement E.O. 13466 charged with prescribing regulations to North Korea Sanctions Regulations and E.O. 13551, pursuant to authorities assign the use of airspace necessary to AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets delegated to the Secretary of the ensure the safety of aircraft and the Control, Treasury. Treasury in those orders. A copy of E.O. efficient use of airspace. This regulation 13466 appears in appendix A to this ACTION: Final rule. is within the scope of that authority as part. A copy of E.O. 13551 appears in it amends controlled airspace at SUMMARY: The Department of the appendix B to this part. Jeannette, PA. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets The Regulations are being published Control (‘‘OFAC’’) is issuing regulations in abbreviated form at this time for the Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 with respect to North Korea to purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to Airspace, Incorporation by reference, implement Executive Order 13466 of supplement this part 510 with a more Navigation (air). June 26, 2008, and Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010. OFAC comprehensive set of regulations, which Adoption of the Amendment intends to supplement this part 510 may include additional interpretive and with a more comprehensive set of definitional guidance and additional ■ In consideration of the foregoing, the regulations, which may include general licenses and statements of Federal Aviation Administration additional interpretive and definitional licensing policy. (The appendices to the amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: guidance and additional general Regulations will be removed when licenses and statements of licensing OFAC supplements this part with a PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, policy. more comprehensive set of regulations.) B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR Public Participation TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND DATES: Effective Date: November 4, REPORTING POINTS 2010. Because the Regulations involve a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: foreign affairs function, the provisions ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 71 Assistant Director for Compliance, of Executive Order 12866 and the continues to read as follows: Outreach & Implementation, tel.: 202/ Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 622–2490, Assistant Director for 553) requiring notice of proposed 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Licensing, tel.: 202/622–2480, Assistant rulemaking, opportunity for public 1963 Comp., p. 389. Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622–4855, participation, and delay in effective date Office of Foreign Assets Control, or are inapplicable. Because no notice of § 71.1 [Amended] Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), proposed rulemaking is required for this tel.: 202/622–2410, Office of the General rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in Counsel, Department of the Treasury (5 U.S.C. 601–612) does not apply. 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation (not toll free numbers). Paperwork Reduction Act Administration Order 7400.9U, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airspace Designations and Reporting The collections of information related Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective Electronic and Facsimile Availability to the Regulations are contained in 31 September 15, 2010, is amended as This document and additional CFR part 501 (the ‘‘Reporting, follows: information concerning OFAC are Procedures and Penalties Regulations’’). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas available from OFAC’s Web site Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those extending upward from 700 feet or more (http://www.treas.gov/ofac). Certain above the surface of the earth. general information pertaining to collections of information have been OFAC’s sanctions programs also is approved by the Office of Management * * * * * available via facsimile through a 24- and Budget under control number 1505– AEA PA E5 Jeannette, PA [Amended] hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202/ 0164. An agency may not conduct or Monsour Medical Center Heliport Point In 622–0077. sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information Space Coordinates Background (Lat. 40°19′49″ N., long. 79°37′44″ W.) unless the collection of information On June 26, 2008, the President, displays a valid control number. That airspace extending upward from 700 invoking the authority of, inter alia, the List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 510 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius International Emergency Economic of the Point in Space coordinates, at Lat. Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) Administrative practice and 40°19′49″ N., long. 79°37′44″ W., serving the (‘‘IEEPA’’) and the National Emergencies procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of Monsour Medical Center Heliport. Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (‘‘NEA’’), assets, Credit, North Korea, Services.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67913

■ For the reasons set forth in the Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); are published on the Office of Foreign Assets preamble, the Department of the 50 U.S.C. 1601–1651, 1701–1706; 22 U.S.C. Control’s Specially Designated Nationals and Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 287c; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 Blocked Persons List (‘‘SDN’’ list) (which is Control adds part 510 to 31 CFR Chapter U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110–96, 121 Stat. accessible via the Office of Foreign Assets 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13466, 73 FR Control’s Web site), published in the Federal V to read as follows: 36787, June 27, 2008, 3 CFR, 2008 Comp., p. Register, and incorporated into Appendix A 195; E.O. 13551, 75 FR 53837, September 1, ‘‘ ’’ PART 510—NORTH KOREA to this chapter with the identifier [DPRK]. 2010. See § 510.406 concerning entities that may SANCTIONS REGULATIONS not be listed on the SDN list but whose Subpart A—Relation of This Part to Other Subpart A—Relation of This Part to property and interests in property are Laws and Regulations Other Laws and Regulations nevertheless blocked pursuant to this section. Sec. § 510.101 Relation of this part to other Note 2 to § 510.201: Section 203 of the 510.101 Relation of this part to other laws laws and regulations. International Emergency Economic Powers and regulations. Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) (‘‘IEEPA’’) This part is separate from, and Subpart B—Prohibitions explicitly authorizes the blocking of property independent of, the other parts of this and interests in property of a person during 510.201 Prohibited transactions. chapter, with the exception of part 501 the pendency of an investigation. The names 510.202 Effect of transfers violating the of this chapter, the recordkeeping and of persons whose property and interests in provisions of this part. reporting requirements and license property are blocked pending investigation 510.203 Holding of funds in interest- application and other procedures of pursuant to this part also are published on bearing accounts; investment and the SDN list, published in the Federal reinvestment. which apply to this part. Actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with Register, and incorporated into Appendix A Subpart C—General Definitions respect to the prohibitions contained in to this chapter with the identifier ‘‘[BPI– DPRK].’’ 510.301 Blocked account; blocked property. this part are considered actions taken 510.302 Effective date. pursuant to this part. Differing foreign Note 3 to § 510.201: Sections 501.806 and 510.303 Entity. policy and national security 501.807 of this chapter describe the 510.304 Interest. circumstances may result in differing procedures to be followed by persons 510.305 Licenses; general and specific. interpretations of similar language seeking, respectively, the unblocking of 510.306 Person. funds that they believe were blocked due to 510.307 Property; property interest. among the parts of this chapter. No mistaken identity, or administrative 510.308 Transfer. license or authorization contained in or reconsideration of the status of their property 510.309 United States. issued pursuant to those other parts and interests in property as blocked pursuant 510.310 U.S. financial institution. authorizes any transaction prohibited by to § 501.201(a) or of their status as persons 510.311 United States person; U.S. person. this part. No license or authorization whose property and interests in property are Subpart D—Interpretations contained in or issued pursuant to any blocked pursuant to § 510.201(b). 510.401 [Reserved] other provision of law or regulation 510.402 Effect of amendment. authorizes any transaction prohibited by § 510.202 Effect of transfers violating the 510.403 Termination and acquisition of an this part. No license or authorization provisions of this part. interest in blocked property. contained in or issued pursuant to this (a) Any transfer after the effective date 510.404 Transactions ordinarily incident to part relieves the involved parties from that is in violation of any provision of a licensed transaction authorized. complying with any other applicable this part or of any regulation, order, 510.405 Setoffs prohibited. laws or regulations. 510.406 Entities owned by a person whose directive, ruling, instruction, or license property and interests in property are Note to § 510.101: This part has been issued pursuant to this part, and that blocked. published in abbreviated form for the involves any property or interest in purpose of providing immediate guidance to property blocked pursuant to § 510.201 Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and the public. OFAC intends to supplement this Statements of Licensing Policy is null and void and shall not be the part with a more comprehensive set of basis for the assertion or recognition of regulations, which may include additional 510.501 [Reserved] any interest in or right, remedy, power, 510.502 [Reserved] interpretive and definitional guidance and 510.503 Exclusion from licenses. additional general licenses and statements of or privilege with respect to such 510.504 Payments and transfers to blocked licensing policy. property or property interest. accounts in U.S. financial institutions. (b) No transfer before the effective 510.505 Entries in certain accounts for Subpart B—Prohibitions date shall be the basis for the assertion normal service charges authorized. or recognition of any right, remedy, 510.506 Provision of certain legal services § 510.201 Prohibited transactions. power, or privilege with respect to, or authorized. (a) All transactions prohibited any interest in, any property or interest 510.507 Authorization of emergency pursuant to Executive Order 13466 are in property blocked pursuant to medical services. also prohibited pursuant to this part. § 510.201, unless the person who holds Subpart F—[Reserved] Note 1 to § 510.201(a): The property and or maintains such property, prior to that Subpart G—[Reserved] interests in property of North Korea or a date, had written notice of the transfer North Korean national blocked pursuant to or by any written evidence had Subpart H—Procedures this paragraph are referred to throughout this recognized such transfer. 510.801 [Reserved] part as ‘‘property and interests in property (c) Unless otherwise provided, an 510.802 Delegation by the Secretary of the blocked pursuant to § 510.201(a).’’ appropriate license or other Treasury. (b) All transactions prohibited pursuant to authorization issued by the Office of Executive Order 13551 are also prohibited Subpart I—Paperwork Reduction Act Foreign Assets Control before, during, or pursuant to this part. 510.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice. after a transfer shall validate such Appendix A to Part 510—Executive Order Note 1 to § 510.201: The names of persons transfer or make it enforceable to the 13466 listed in or designated pursuant to Executive same extent that it would be valid or Appendix B to Part 510—Executive Order Order 13551, whose property and interests in enforceable but for the provisions of 13551 property are blocked pursuant to this section, IEEPA, Executive Order 13466,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 67914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 13551, this part, and § 510.203 Holding of funds in interest- a manner that provides immediate any regulation, order, directive, ruling, bearing accounts; investment and financial or economic benefit or access instruction, or license issued pursuant reinvestment. to North Korea or any North Korean to this part. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs national who has property or interests (d) Transfers of property that (c) or (d) of this section, or as otherwise in property blocked pursuant to otherwise would be null and void or directed by the Office of Foreign Assets § 510.201(a) or any person whose unenforceable by virtue of the Control, any U.S. person holding funds, property and interests in property are provisions of this section shall not be such as currency, bank deposits, or blocked pursuant to § 510.201(b), nor deemed to be null and void or liquidated financial obligations, subject may their holder cooperate in or unenforceable as to any person with to § 510.201 shall hold or place such facilitate the pledging or other whom such property is or was held or funds in a blocked interest-bearing attempted use as collateral of blocked maintained (and as to such person only) account located in the United States. funds or other assets. in cases in which such person is able to (b)(1) For purposes of this section, the establish to the satisfaction of the Office term blocked interest-bearing account Subpart C—General Definitions means a blocked account: of Foreign Assets Control each of the § 510.301 Blocked account; blocked following: (i) In a federally insured U.S. bank, thrift institution, or credit union, property. (1) Such transfer did not represent a provided the funds are earning interest The terms blocked account and willful violation of the provisions of this at rates that are commercially blocked property shall mean any part by the person with whom such reasonable; or account or property subject to the property is or was held or maintained (ii) With a broker or dealer registered prohibitions in § 510.201, and either (and as to such person only); with the Securities and Exchange blocked pursuant to § 510.201(a) or held (2) The person with whom such Commission under the Securities in the name of a person whose property property is or was held or maintained Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et and interests in property are blocked did not have reasonable cause to know seq.), provided the funds are invested in pursuant to § 510.201(b), or in which or suspect, in view of all the facts and a money market fund or in U.S. such person has an interest, and with circumstances known or available to Treasury bills. respect to which payments, transfers, such person, that such transfer required (2) For purposes of this section, a rate exportations, withdrawals, or other a license or authorization issued is commercially reasonable if it is the dealings may not be made or effected pursuant to this part and was not so rate currently offered to other depositors except pursuant to an authorization or licensed or authorized, or, if a license or on deposits or instruments of license from the Office of Foreign Assets authorization did purport to cover the comparable size and maturity. Control expressly authorizing such transfer, that such license or (3) Funds held or placed in a blocked action. authorization had been obtained by account pursuant to this paragraph (b) Note to § 510.301: See § 510.406 misrepresentation of a third party or may not be invested in instruments the concerning the blocked status of property withholding of material facts or was maturity of which exceeds 180 days. If and interests in property of an entity that is otherwise fraudulently obtained; and interest is credited to a separate blocked 50 percent or more owned by a person whose (3) The person with whom such account or subaccount, the name of the property and interests in property are property is or was held or maintained account party on each account must be blocked pursuant to § 510.201. filed with the Office of Foreign Assets the same. Control a report setting forth in full the (c) Blocked funds held in instruments § 510.302 Effective date. circumstances relating to such transfer the maturity of which exceeds 180 days The term effective date refers to the promptly upon discovery that: at the time the funds become subject to effective date of the applicable (i) Such transfer was in violation of § 510.201 may continue to be held until prohibitions and directives contained in the provisions of this part or any maturity in the original instrument, this part as follows: regulation, ruling, instruction, license, provided any interest, earnings, or other (a) With respect to property and or other directive or authorization proceeds derived therefrom are paid interests in property blocked pursuant issued pursuant to this part; into a blocked interest-bearing account to E.O. 13466, June 26, 2008; (ii) Such transfer was not licensed or in accordance with paragraphs (b) or (d) Note to paragraph (a): Prior to June 26, authorized by the Office of Foreign of this section. 2008, all property and interests in property Assets Control; or (d) Blocked funds held in accounts or currently blocked pursuant to E.O. 13466 instruments outside the United States at were blocked pursuant to 31 CFR part 500. (iii) If a license did purport to cover the time the funds become subject to the transfer, such license had been (b) With respect to a person listed in § 510.201 may continue to be held in the obtained by misrepresentation of a third the Annex to E.O. 13551, 12:01 p.m. same type of accounts or instruments, party or withholding of material facts or eastern daylight time, August 30, 2010; provided the funds earn interest at rates was otherwise fraudulently obtained. or that are commercially reasonable. (c) With respect to a person whose Note to paragraph (d) of § 510.202: The (e) This section does not create an property and interests in property are filing of a report in accordance with the affirmative obligation for the holder of otherwise blocked pursuant to E.O. provisions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section blocked tangible property, such as 13551, the earlier of the date of actual shall not be deemed evidence that the terms chattels or real estate, or of other of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section or constructive notice that such person’s have been satisfied. blocked property, such as debt or equity property and interests in property are securities, to sell or liquidate such blocked. (e) Unless licensed pursuant to this property. However, the Office of Foreign part, any attachment, judgment, decree, Assets Control may issue licenses § 510.303 Entity. lien, execution, garnishment, or other permitting or directing such sales or The term entity means a partnership, judicial process is null and void with liquidation in appropriate cases. association, trust, joint venture, respect to any property or interest in (f) Funds subject to this section may corporation, group, subgroup, or other property blocked pursuant to § 510.201. not be held, invested, or reinvested in organization.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67915

§ 510.304 Interest. effect of which is to create, surrender, § 510.311 United States person; U.S. Except as otherwise provided in this release, convey, transfer, or alter, person. part, the term interest, when used with directly or indirectly, any right, remedy, The term United States person or U.S. respect to property (e.g., ‘‘an interest in power, privilege, or interest with respect person means any United States citizen, property’’), means an interest of any to any property. Without limitation on permanent resident alien, entity nature whatsoever, direct or indirect. the foregoing, it shall include the organized under the laws of the United making, execution, or delivery of any States or any jurisdiction within the § 510.305 Licenses; general and specific. assignment, power, conveyance, check, United States (including foreign (a) Except as otherwise specified, the declaration, deed, deed of trust, power branches), or any person in the United term license means any license or of attorney, power of appointment, bill States. authorization contained in or issued of sale, mortgage, receipt, agreement, pursuant to this part. Subpart D—Interpretations (b) The term general license means contract, certificate, gift, sale, affidavit, any license or authorization the terms of or statement; the making of any § 510.401 [Reserved] which are set forth in subpart E of this payment; the setting off of any obligation or credit; the appointment of § 510.402 Effect of amendment. part. Unless otherwise specifically (c) The term specific license means any agent, trustee, or fiduciary; the provided, any amendment, any license or authorization not set forth creation or transfer of any lien; the modification, or revocation of any in subpart E of this part but issued issuance, docketing, filing, or levy of or provision in this part, any provision in pursuant to this part. under any judgment, decree, attachment, injunction, execution, or or appendix to this chapter, or any Note to § 510.305: See § 501.801 of this order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or chapter on licensing procedures. other judicial or administrative process or order, or the service of any license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control does not affect any act § 510.306 Person. garnishment; the acquisition of any interest of any nature whatsoever by done or omitted, or any civil or criminal The term person means an individual proceeding commenced or pending, or entity. reason of a judgment or decree of any foreign country; the fulfillment of any prior to such amendment, modification, § 510.307 Property; property interest. condition; the exercise of any power of or revocation. All penalties, forfeitures, The terms property and property appointment, power of attorney, or and liabilities under any such order, interest include, but are not limited to, other power; or the acquisition, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license money, checks, drafts, bullion, bank disposition, transportation, importation, continue and may be enforced as if such deposits, savings accounts, debts, exportation, or withdrawal of any amendment, modification, or revocation indebtedness, obligations, notes, security. had not been made. guarantees, debentures, stocks, bonds, § 510.403 Termination and acquisition of coupons, any other financial § 510.309 United States. an interest in blocked property. instruments, bankers acceptances, The term United States means the (a) Whenever a transaction licensed or mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights United States, its territories and authorized by or pursuant to this part in the nature of security, warehouse possessions, and all areas under the results in the transfer of property receipts, bills of lading, trust receipts, jurisdiction or authority thereof. (including any property interest) away bills of sale, any other evidences of title, from a person, such property shall no ownership or indebtedness, letters of § 510.310 U.S. financial institution. longer be deemed to be property credit and any documents relating to The term U.S. financial institution blocked pursuant to § 510.201, unless any rights or obligations thereunder, means any U.S. entity (including its there exists in the property another powers of attorney, goods, wares, foreign branches) that is engaged in the interest that is blocked pursuant to merchandise, chattels, stocks on hand, business of accepting deposits, making, § 510.201 or any other part of this ships, goods on ships, real estate granting, transferring, holding, or chapter, the transfer of which has not mortgages, deeds of trust, vendors’ sales brokering loans or credits, or purchasing been effected pursuant to license or agreements, land contracts, leaseholds, or selling foreign exchange, securities, other authorization. ground rents, real estate and any other commodity futures or options, or (b) Unless otherwise specifically interest therein, options, negotiable procuring purchasers and sellers provided in a license or authorization instruments, trade acceptances, thereof, as principal or agent. It includes issued pursuant to this part, if property royalties, book accounts, accounts but is not limited to depository (including any property interest) is payable, judgments, patents, trademarks institutions, banks, savings banks, trust transferred or attempted to be or copyrights, insurance policies, safe transferred to a person whose property deposit boxes and their contents, companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options and interests in property are blocked annuities, pooling agreements, services pursuant to § 510.201(b), such property brokers and dealers, forward contract of any nature whatsoever, contracts of shall be deemed to be property in which and foreign exchange merchants, any nature whatsoever, and any other that person has an interest and therefore securities and commodities exchanges, property, real, personal, or mixed, blocked. tangible or intangible, or interest or clearing corporations, investment interests therein, present, future, or companies, employee benefit plans, and § 510.404 Transactions ordinarily incident contingent. U.S. holding companies, U.S. affiliates, to a licensed transaction authorized. or U.S. subsidiaries of any of the Any transaction ordinarily incident to § 510.308 Transfer. foregoing. This term includes those a licensed transaction and necessary to The term transfer means any actual or branches, offices and agencies of foreign give effect thereto is also authorized, purported act or transaction, whether or financial institutions that are located in except: not evidenced by writing, and whether the United States, but not such (a) An ordinarily incident transaction, or not done or performed within the institutions’ foreign branches, offices, or not explicitly authorized within the United States, the purpose, intent, or agencies. terms of the license, by or with a person

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 67916 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

whose property and interests in made from an account within the (5) Provision of legal services in any property are blocked pursuant to United States to an account held outside other context in which prevailing U.S. § 510.201(b); or the United States, and further provided law requires access to legal counsel at (b) An ordinarily incident transaction, that a transfer from a blocked account public expense. not explicitly authorized within the may be made only to another blocked (b) The provision of any other legal terms of the license, involving a debit to account held in the same name. services to persons whose property and a blocked account or a transfer of Note to § 510.504: See § 501.603 of this interests in property are blocked blocked property. chapter for mandatory reporting pursuant to § 510.201(b), not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the § 510.405 Setoffs prohibited. requirements regarding financial transfers. See also § 510.203 concerning the obligation issuance of a specific license. A setoff against blocked property to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing (c) Entry into a settlement agreement (including a blocked account), whether accounts. or the enforcement of any lien, by a U.S. bank or other U.S. person, is judgment, arbitral award, decree, or a prohibited transfer under § 510.201 if § 510.505 Entries in certain accounts for other order through execution, effected after the effective date. normal service charges authorized. garnishment, or other judicial process § 510.406 Entities owned by a person (a) A U.S. financial institution is purporting to transfer or otherwise alter whose property and interests in property authorized to debit any blocked account or affect property or interests in are blocked. held at that financial institution in property blocked pursuant to § 510.201 A person whose property and payment or reimbursement for normal is prohibited unless licensed pursuant interests in property are blocked service charges owed it by the owner of to this part. that blocked account. pursuant to § 510.201(b) has an interest § 510.507 Authorization of emergency in all property and interests in property (b) As used in this section, the term medical services. of an entity in which it owns, directly normal service charges shall include The provision of nonscheduled or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater charges in payment or reimbursement emergency medical services in the interest. The property and interests in for interest due; cable, telegraph, United States to persons whose property property of such an entity, therefore, are Internet, or telephone charges; postage and interests in property are blocked blocked, and such an entity is a person costs; custody fees; small adjustment pursuant to § 510.201(b) is authorized, whose property and interests in charges to correct bookkeeping errors; provided that all receipt of payment for property are blocked pursuant to and, but not by way of limitation, such services must be specifically § 510.201(b), regardless of whether the minimum balance charges, notary and licensed. entity itself is listed in the Annex or protest fees, and charges for reference designated pursuant to Executive Order books, photocopies, credit reports, Subpart F—[Reserved] 13551. transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, Subpart G—[Reserved] Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and other similar items. and Statements of Licensing Policy § 510.506 Provision of certain legal Subpart H—Procedures § 510.501 [Reserved] services authorized. § 510.801 [Reserved] § 510.502 [Reserved] (a) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of persons § 510.802 Delegation by the Secretary of § 510.503 Exclusion from licenses. whose property and interests in the Treasury. The Office of Foreign Assets Control property are blocked pursuant to Any action that the Secretary of the reserves the right to exclude any person, § 510.201(b) is authorized, provided that Treasury is authorized to take pursuant property, or transaction from the all receipts of payment of professional to Executive Order 13466 of June 26, operation of any license or from the fees and reimbursement of incurred 2008 (73 FR 36787, June 27, 2008), or privileges conferred by any license. The expenses must be specifically licensed: Executive Order 13551 of August 30, Office of Foreign Assets Control also (1) Provision of legal advice and 2010 (75 FR 53837, September 1, 2010), reserves the right to restrict the counseling on the requirements of and and any further Executive orders applicability of any license to particular compliance with the laws of the United relating to the national emergency persons, property, transactions, or States or any jurisdiction within the declared in Executive Order 13466, may classes thereof. Such actions are binding United States, provided that such advice be taken by the Director of the Office of upon actual or constructive notice of the and counseling are not provided to Foreign Assets Control or by any other exclusions or restrictions. facilitate transactions in violation of this person to whom the Secretary of the part; Treasury has delegated authority so to § 510.504 Payments and transfers to act. blocked accounts in U.S. financial (2) Representation of persons named institutions. as defendants in or otherwise made Subpart I—Paperwork Reduction Act Any payment of funds or transfer of parties to domestic U.S. legal, credit in which a person whose property arbitration, or administrative § 510.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice. and interests in property are blocked proceedings; For approval by the Office of pursuant to § 510.201(b) has any interest (3) Initiation and conduct of domestic Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) under that comes within the possession or U.S. legal, arbitration, or administrative the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 control of a U.S. financial institution proceedings in defense of property (44 U.S.C. 3507) of information must be blocked in an account on the interests subject to U.S. jurisdiction; collections relating to recordkeeping books of that financial institution. A (4) Representation of persons before and reporting requirements, licensing transfer of funds or credit by a U.S. any federal or state agency with respect procedures (including those pursuant to financial institution between blocked to the imposition, administration, or statements of licensing policy), and accounts in its branches or offices is enforcement of U.S. sanctions against other procedures, see § 501.901 of this authorized, provided that no transfer is such persons; and chapter. An agency may not conduct or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67917

sponsor, and a person is not required to (b) The term ‘‘entity’’ means a partnership, including the procurement of luxury goods; respond to, a collection of information association, trust, joint venture, corporation, and its illicit and deceptive activities in unless it displays a valid control group, subgroup, or other organization; and international markets through which it number assigned by OMB. (c) The term ‘‘United States person’’ means obtains financial and other support, any United States citizen, permanent resident including money laundering, the Appendix A to Part 510—Executive alien, entity organized under the laws of the counterfeiting of goods and currency, bulk Order 13466 United States or any jurisdiction within the cash smuggling, and narcotics trafficking, United States (including foreign branches), or destabilize the Korean peninsula and imperil Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008 any person in the United States. U.S. Armed Forces, allies, and trading Sec. 5. The Secretary of the Treasury, after partners in the region, and thereby constitute Continuing Certain Restrictions With Respect consultation with the Secretary of State, is an unusual and extraordinary threat to the to North Korea and North Korean Nationals hereby authorized to take such actions, national security, foreign policy, and By the authority vested in me as President including the promulgation of rules and economy of the United States. by the Constitution and the laws of the regulations, and to employ all powers I hereby order: United States of America, including the granted to the President by IEEPA as may be Section 1. (a) All property and interests in International Emergency Economic Powers necessary to carry out the purposes of this property that are in the United States, that Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the order. The Secretary of the Treasury may hereafter come within the United States, or National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et redelegate any of these functions to other that are or hereafter come within the seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United officers and agencies of the United States possession or control of any United States States Code, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President Government consistent with applicable law. person, including any overseas branch, of the of the United States of America, find that the All agencies of the United States Government following persons are blocked and may not current existence and risk of the proliferation are hereby directed to take all appropriate be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or of weapons-usable fissile material on the measures within their authority to carry out otherwise dealt in: Korean Peninsula constitute an unusual and the provisions of this order. (i) The persons listed in the Annex to this extraordinary threat to the national security Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, after order; and and foreign policy of the United States, and consultation with the Secretary of State, is (ii) Any person determined by the I hereby declare a national emergency to deal hereby authorized to submit the recurring Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with that threat. I further find that, as we deal and final reports to the Congress on the with the Secretary of State: with that threat through multilateral national emergency declared in this order, (A) To have, directly or indirectly, diplomacy, it is necessary to continue certain consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 imported, exported, or reexported to, into, or restrictions with respect to North Korea that U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA from North Korea any arms or related would otherwise be lifted pursuant to a (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)). materiel; forthcoming proclamation that will terminate Sec. 7. This order is not intended to, and (B) To have, directly or indirectly, the exercise of authorities under the Trading does not, create any right or benefit, provided training, advice, or other services or With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et substantive or procedural, enforceable at law assistance, or engaged in financial seq.) (TWEA) with respect to North Korea. or in equity by any party against the United transactions, related to the manufacture, Accordingly, I hereby order: States, its departments, agencies, maintenance, or use of any arms or related Section 1. Except to the extent provided in instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or materiel to be imported, exported, or statutes or in regulations, orders, directives, employees, or any other person. reexported to, into, or from North Korea, or or licenses that may be issued pursuant to George W. Bush, following their importation, exportation, or this order, and notwithstanding any contract THE WHITE HOUSE, reexportation to, into, or from North Korea; entered into or any license or permit granted June 26, 2008. (C) To have, directly or indirectly, prior to the date of this order, the following imported, exported, or reexported luxury are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, Appendix B to Part 510—Executive goods to or into North Korea; exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: Order 13551 (D) To have, directly or indirectly, engaged All property and interests in property of Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010 in money laundering, the counterfeiting of North Korea or a North Korean national that, goods or currency, bulk cash smuggling, pursuant to the President’s authorities under Blocking Property of Certain Persons With narcotics trafficking, or other illicit economic the TWEA, the exercise of which has been Respect to North Korea activity that involves or supports the continued in accordance with section 101(b) By the authority vested in me as President Government of North Korea or any senior of Public Law 95–223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 by the Constitution and the laws of the official thereof; U.S.C. App. 5(b) note), were blocked as of United States of America, including the (E) To have materially assisted, sponsored, June 16, 2000, and remained blocked International Emergency Economic Powers or provided financial, material, or immediately prior to the date of this order. Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the technological support for, or goods or Sec. 2. Except to the extent provided in National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et services to or in support of, the activities statutes or in regulations, orders, directives, seq.), section 5 of the United Nations described in subsections (a)(ii)(A)–(D) of this or licenses that may be issued pursuant to Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) section or any person whose property and this order, and notwithstanding any contract (UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United interests in property are blocked pursuant to entered into or any license or permit granted States Code; in view of United Nations this order; prior to the date of this order, United States Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1718 (F) To be owned or controlled by, or to persons may not register a vessel in North of October 14, 2006, and UNSCR 1874 of June have acted or purported to act for or on Korea, obtain authorization for a vessel to fly 12, 2009; and to take additional steps with behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person the North Korean flag, or own, lease, operate, respect to the situation in North Korea. whose property and interests in property are or insure any vessel flagged by North Korea. I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the blocked pursuant to this order; or (G) to have Sec. 3. (a) Any transaction by a United United States of America, hereby expand the attempted to engage in any of the activities States person or within the United States that scope of the national emergency declared in described in subsections (a)(ii)(A)–(F) of this evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, section. or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the finding that the continued actions and (b) I hereby determine that, to the extent prohibitions set forth in this order is policies of the Government of North Korea, section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. prohibited. manifested most recently by its unprovoked 1702(b)(2)) may apply, the making of (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any attack that resulted in the sinking of the donations of the types of articles specified in of the prohibitions set forth in this order is Republic of Korea Navy ship Cheonan and such section by, to, or for the benefit of any prohibited. the deaths of 46 sailors in March 2010; its person whose property and interests in Sec. 4. For the purposes of this order: announced test of a nuclear device and its property are blocked pursuant to this order (a) The term ‘‘person’’ means an individual missile launches in 2009; its actions in would seriously impair my ability to deal or entity; violation of UNSCRs 1718 and 1874, with the national emergency declared in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 67918 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 13466 and expanded in United States (including foreign branches), or authority to carry out the provisions of this scope in this order, and I hereby prohibit any person in the United States; order. such donations as provided by subsection (a) (d) The term ‘‘North Korea’’ includes the Sec. 7. The Secretary of the Treasury, in of this section. territory of the Democratic People’s Republic consultation with the Secretary of State, is (c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of of Korea and the Government of North Korea; hereby authorized to determine that this section include, but are not limited to: (e) The term ‘‘Government of North Korea’’ circumstances no longer warrant the blocking (i) The making of any contribution or means the Government of the Democratic of the property and interests in property of provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, People’s Republic of Korea, its agencies, a person listed in the Annex to this order, or for the benefit of any person whose instrumentalities, and controlled entities; and to take necessary action to give effect to property and interests in property are and that determination. blocked pursuant to this order; and (f) The term ‘‘luxury goods’’ includes those Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and (ii) The receipt of any contribution or items listed in 15 CFR 746.4(b)(l) and does not, create any right or benefit, provision of funds, goods, or services from Supplement No. 1 to part 746 and similar substantive or procedural, enforceable at law any such person. items. (d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of or in equity by any party against the United Sec. 5. For those persons whose property this section apply except to the extent States, its departments, agencies, or entities, and interests in property are blocked provided by statutes, or in regulations, its officers, employees, agents, or any other pursuant to this order who might have a orders, directives, or licenses that may be person. constitutional presence in the United States, issued pursuant to this order, and Sec. 9. This order is effective at 12:01 p.m., notwithstanding any contract entered into or I find that because of the ability to transfer eastern daylight time on August 30, 2010. funds or other assets instantaneously, prior any license or permit granted prior to the Barack Obama, effective date of this order. notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render THE WHITE HOUSE, Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United August 30, 2010. States person or within the United States that these measures ineffectual. I therefore evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading determine that for these measures to be ANNEX effective in addressing the national or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts Individual to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in emergency declared in Executive Order this order is prohibited. 13466 and expanded in scope in this order, 1. KIM Yong Chol [born 1946 or 1947] there need be no prior notice of a listing or (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any Entities of the prohibitions set forth in this order is determination made pursuant to section 1(a) prohibited. of this order. 1. Green Pine Associated Corporation Sec. 3. The provisions of Executive Order Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in 2. Reconnaissance General Bureau 13466 remain in effect, and this order does consultation with the Secretary of State, is 3. Office 39 not affect any action taken pursuant to that hereby authorized to take such actions, Dated: October 26, 2010. including the promulgation of rules and order. Adam J. Szubin, Sec. 4. For the purposes of this order: regulations, and to employ all powers (a) The term ‘‘person’’ means an individual granted to the President by IEEPA and the Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. or entity; UNPA, as may be necessary to carry out the Approved: October 28, 2010. (b) The term ‘‘entity’’ means a partnership, purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Stuart A. Levey, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, Treasury may redelegate any of these Under Secretary, Office of Terrorism and group, subgroup, or other organization; functions to other officers and agencies of the Financial Intelligence, Department of the (c) The term ‘‘United States person’’ means United States Government consistent with Treasury. any United States citizen, permanent resident applicable law. All agencies of the United alien, entity organized under the laws of the States Government are hereby directed to [FR Doc. 2010–27829 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] United States or any jurisdiction within the take all appropriate measures within their BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:43 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES 67919

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 213

Thursday, November 4, 2010

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER • Mail: to Christopher Lambesis, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The request contains notices to the public of the proposed Environmental Protection Agency, Land must contain the information prescribed issuance of rules and regulations. The and Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: in 40 CFR 260.20(d). purpose of these notices is to give interested LR–8J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson persons an opportunity to participate in the Docket: All documents in the docket Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. are listed in the http:// rule making prior to the adoption of the final • rules. Hand Delivery: to Christopher www.regulations.gov index. Although Lambesis, Land and Chemicals Division, listed in the index, some information is EPA Region 5, 8th Floor, 77 West not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. information whose disclosure is AGENCY Such deliveries are only accepted restricted by statute. Certain other during normal hours of operation, and material, such as copyrighted material, 40 CFR Part 261 special arrangements should be made will be publicly available only in hard [EPA–R05–RCRA–2010–0843; SW–FRL– for deliveries of boxed information. copy form. Publicly available docket 9221–2] Please contact Christopher Lambesis at materials are available either (312) 886–3583. electronically through http:// Hazardous Waste Management Instructions: Direct your comments to www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at System; Proposed Exclusion for Docket ID No. [EPA–R05–RCRA–2010– the Records Center, 7th floor, U.S. EPA Identifying and Listing Hazardous 0843]. EPA’s policy is that all comments Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Waste received will be included in the public Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is docket without change and may be open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday AGENCY: Environmental Protection made available online at http:// Agency (EPA). through Friday, excluding legal www.regulations.gov, including any holidays. We recommend you telephone ACTION: Proposed rule and request for personal information provided, unless Christopher Lambesis at (312) 886–3583 comment. the comment includes information before visiting the Region 5 office. The claimed to be Confidential Business SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’ public may copy material from the Information (CBI) or other information regulatory docket at 15 cents per page. or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is proposing whose disclosure is restricted by statute. to grant a petition submitted by Owosso Do not submit information that you FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Graphic Arts Inc. (Owosso), in Owosso consider to be CBI or otherwise Christopher Lambesis, Land and Michigan to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to protected through http:// Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: LR–8J), 244 cubic yards of wastewater treatment www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, sludge per year from the list of http://www.regulations.gov Web site is Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: hazardous wastes. an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which (312) 886–3583; fax number (312) 692– The Agency has tentatively decided to means EPA will not know your identity 2195; e-mail address: grant the petition based on an or contact information unless you [email protected]. evaluation of waste-specific information provide it in the body of your comment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provided by Owosso. This proposed If you send an e-mail comment directly The decision, if finalized, conditionally to EPA without going through http:// information in this section is organized excludes the petitioned waste from the www.regulations.gov your e-mail as follows: requirements of hazardous waste address will be automatically captured I. Overview Information regulations under the Resource and included as part of the comment II. Background Conservation and Recovery Act. that is placed in the public docket and A. What is a listed waste? We conclude that Owosso’s petitioned made available on the Internet. If you B. What is a delisting petition? waste is nonhazardous with respect to submit an electronic comment, EPA C. What factors must EPA consider in the original listing criteria and that there recommends that you include your deciding whether to grant a delisting petition? are no other factors which would cause name and other contact information in the waste to be hazardous when III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste the body of your comment and with any Information and Data disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA which is permitted, licensed, or A. What waste did Owosso petition EPA to cannot read your comment due to delist? registered by a State to manage technical difficulties and cannot contact B. How does Owosso generate the waste? industrial solid waste. you for clarification, EPA may not be C. How did Owosso sample and analyze DATES: Comments must be received on able to consider your comment. the waste? or before December 6, 2010. Requests for Electronic files should avoid the use of D. What were the results of Owosso’s an informal hearing must reach EPA by special characters, any form of analysis of the waste? November 19, 2010. encryption, and be free of any defects or E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste? ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, viruses. F. What did EPA conclude about Owosso’s identified by Docket ID No. [EPA–R05– Any person may request an informal waste? RCRA–2010–0843] by one of the hearing on this proposed decision by IV. Conditions for Exclusion following methods: filing a request with Bruce Sypniewski, A. When would EPA finalize the proposed • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow Acting Director, Land and Chemicals delisting exclusion? the on-line instructions for submitting Division, Environmental Protection B. How will Owosso manage the waste if comments. Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, it is delisted?

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67920 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

C. What are the maximum allowable facility meeting the listing description EPA must also consider as hazardous concentrations of hazardous constituents may not be. wastes mixtures containing listed in the waste? A procedure to exclude or delist a hazardous wastes and wastes derived D. How frequently must Owosso test the waste is provided in 40 CFR 260.20 and from treating, storing, or disposing of waste? E. What data must Owosso submit? 260.22 which allows a person, or a listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR F. What happens if Owosso’s waste fails to facility, to submit a petition to the EPA 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the meet the conditions of the exclusion? or to an authorized state demonstrating ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules, G. What must Owosso do if the process that a specific waste from a particular respectively. Mixture and derived-from changes? generating facility is not hazardous. wastes are also eligible for exclusion but V. How would this action affect states? In a delisting petition, the petitioner remain hazardous until excluded. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews must show that a waste does not meet III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste I. Overview Information any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 Information and Data CFR 261.11 and that the waste does not The EPA is proposing to grant a exhibit any of the hazardous waste A. What waste did Owosso petition EPA petition submitted by Owosso Graphic characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, to delist? Arts Incorporated (Owosso) located in corrosivity, or toxicity. The petitioner Owosso, Michigan to exclude or delist In May 2005, Owosso petitioned EPA must present sufficient information for to exclude an annual volume of 244 an annual volume of 244 cubic yards of us to decide whether any factors in F006 wastewater treatment sludge from cubic yards of F006 wastewater addition to those for which the waste treatment sludges generated at its the lists of hazardous waste set forth in was listed warrant retaining it as a Title 40 of the Code of Federal facility located in Owosso, Michigan hazardous waste. (See § 260.22, 42 from the list of hazardous wastes Regulations (40 CFR) 261.31. Owosso United States Code—U.S.C.—6921(f) claims that the petitioned waste does contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F006 is and the background documents for the defined in § 261.31 as ‘‘Wastewater not meet the criteria for which EPA listed wastes.) listed it, and that there are no additional treatment sludges from electroplating If a delisting petition is granted, the operations * * *’’ Owosso claims that constituents or factors which could generator remains obligated under cause the waste to be hazardous. the petitioned waste does not meet the RCRA to confirm that the waste remains criteria for which F006 was listed (i.e., Based on our review described in nonhazardous. section III, we agree with the petitioner cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel that the waste is nonhazardous. We C. What factors must EPA consider in and complexed cyanide) and that there reviewed the description of the process deciding whether to grant a delisting are no other factors which would cause which generates the waste and the petition? the waste to be hazardous. analytical data submitted by Owosso. In reviewing this petition, we B. How does Owosso generate the waste? We believe that the petitioned waste considered the original listing criteria Owosso Graphic Arts conducts does not meet the criteria for which the and the additional factors required by chemical etching of magnesium plates waste was listed, and that there are no the Hazardous and Solid Waste to produce photoengraved dies for the other factors which might cause the Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See printing and foil stamping industries. waste to be hazardous. section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), Owosso Graphic Arts also etches other II. Background and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). We metals using ferric chloride to produce evaluated the petitioned waste against similar products. The magnesium A. What is a listed waste? the listing criteria and factors cited in etching process is physically separated The EPA published an amended list § 261.11(a)(2) and (3). from that of the other metals and share of hazardous wastes from nonspecific Besides considering the criteria in 40 no common equipment, piping or waste and specific sources on January 16, CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 handling procedures. 1981, as part of its final and interim U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background A desired pattern is applied to a final regulations implementing section documents for the listed wastes, EPA magnesium plate in the form of a 3001 of Resource Conservation and must consider any factors (including printed laminate sensitive to ultra-violet Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has additional constituents) other than those (UV) light. After UV exposure, the amended this list several times and for which we listed the waste if these magnesium plate is exposed to a spray published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and additional factors could cause the waste of developing agent in a self-contained 261.32. to be hazardous. unit that washes away areas of laminate We list these wastes as hazardous Our tentative decision to delist waste where etching is to occur. The solvent because: (1) They typically and from Owosso’s facility is based on our trichloroethylene (TCE) was used as the frequently exhibit one or more of the evaluation of the waste for factors or developing agent until December 2007 characteristics of hazardous wastes criteria which could cause the waste to when an aqueous solution (Hydro-Coat) identified in subpart C of part 261 (that be hazardous. These factors included: containing inorganic sodium salt and a is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, (1) Whether the waste is considered surfactant replaced TCE. and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the The aqueous developer was used until for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or constituents; (3) the concentration of the September 2008 when Owosso began (3). constituents in the waste; (4) the using the solvent n-methyl 2- tendency of the constituents to migrate pyrrolidone (NMP) as the developing B. What is a delisting petition? and to bioaccumulate; (5) the agent. Individual waste streams may vary persistence in the environment of any Nitric acid is used to etch the surface depending on raw materials, industrial constituents once released from the of magnesium plates to create the processes, and other factors. Thus, waste; (6) plausible and specific types of contoured die surface. The developed while a waste described in the management of the petitioned waste; (7) plate is cleaned with a mild (1–2 regulations generally is hazardous, a the quantity of waste produced; and (8) percent) nitric acid solution to remove specific waste from an individual waste variability. the remaining protective coating from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67921

the plate. The cleaning solution is for 12 hours to allow solids to EPA later asked for additional discharged to a publicly owned precipitate and settle to the bottom of analysis for trichloroethylene (TCE) treatment works (POTW) subject to the the tank. The supernatant liquid is since Owosso’s process includes TCE as Clean Water Act. decanted for discharge to the POTW. a graphic image developer and may be The plate is placed in one of several Dewatering of precipitate formed expected in the waste. Accordingly, self-contained etching units varying in during wastewater treatment occurs in a Owosso collected additional grab size and equipped with reservoirs of filter press adjacent to the tank samples of the waste in November 2007 nitric acid-based etching solution (nitric containment area. The filter press is for full-scan total volatile analysis (SW– acid, water, Mag-O 20 detergent). The emptied into three steel gondolas prior 846 Methods 5035 & 8260B). TCE was reservoir may contain between 200–400 to being placed in a lined roll-off detected, however, Owosso had liters of etching solution depending on container. replaced the TCE developer with the the size of the etching unit. Each aqueous developing agent by this time. magnesium plate is weighed prior to C. How did Owosso sample and analyze To confirm that concentrations of TCE entering the etching process and again the petitioned waste? in the waste were decreasing since TCE once etching is completed. The was no longer used and only residual difference between the initial weight Owosso collected a sample of the TCE remained in the process, Owosso and the post-etching weight is used to waste in July 2004 for total oil and collected three additional grab samples calculate the amount of magnesium grease (SW–846 Method 9071B), for volatile analysis in April and May of residual remaining in the etching volatiles (SW–846 Method 8260B), semi 2008 (SW–846 Method 5035 & 8260B). solution reservoir. The amount of metal volatiles and pesticides (SW–846 Owosso collected four composite residue introduced into the etching Method 8270C), polychlorinated samples of the sludge and one sample solution varies based on the size of the biphenyls—PCBs—(SW–846 Method of the raw product NMP in March 2010. plate being etched and depth of the 8082), and metals (SW–846 Method The samples were analyzed by a etching required by individual projects. 6010B except for mercury—SW–846 modified SW–846 8270 method for Operators of the system may adjust Method 7471). Owosso sampled the tentatively identifies compounds (TICs). the strength of the acid between etching sludge again in August 2004 for oil and The raw product NMP sample was used events to balance the acid content of the grease (SW–846 Method 9071B). to determine the NMP retention time in solution for optimal etching Owosso continued to characterize the order to aid in the analysis of the performance. Once the metal waste based on a November 2004 composite samples. The concentration concentration becomes too great to Sampling and Analysis Plan. Due to the of TICs with similar mass spectra and provide optimal etching, the nitric acid small waste stream size, EPA and retention time to NMP were added to solution is considered spent and is Owosso agreed to conservatively the overall concentration because they transferred to a wastewater treatment estimate constituent leaching by may be derivatives of NMP. process for neutralization. dividing the total result by 20. This Wastewater treatment sludge is simulates the TCLP test with the D. What were the results of Owosso’s produced in a batch process in which assumption that all of the constituent in analysis of its waste? spent etchant (nitric acid based etching the total would leach. Owosso collected The table below presents the solution described above) is pumped to five composite samples of the waste maximum observed total concentrations a holding tank to await treatment. between December 2004 and March for all detected constituents for which Transfer of approximately 500 gallons of 2005 and analyzed them for maximum allowable total and leachate spent etchant into the holding tank bromomethane and chloromethane concentrations were available. Leachate occurs on a daily basis. (SW–846 Method 8260B), cyanide (SW– concentrations were estimated by The used etchant is combined with 846 Method 9012A), sulfide (SW–846 dividing the total concentration by 20 sodium hydroxide and water to Method 9034), antimony and arsenic (the dilution factor from the TCLP test). neutralize the spent etchant prior to (SW–846 Method 6020B), cadmium, Total concentrations are expressed in discharge to the City of Owosso’s chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). POTW. The neutralization process zinc (SW–846 Method 6010B). This Leachate concentrations are expressed requires a residence time of subset of constituents was comprised of in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Owosso approximately 30 minutes for complete waste constituents detected in prior submitted a signed statement certifying neutralization of the spent acid solution. sampling events and the constituents for accuracy and responsibility of the The treated solution is allowed to settle which the waste was listed. results. See 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

Maximum observed Maximum allowable Constituent detected concentration concentration GW (mg/L) Total 1 (mg/kg) TCLP 2 (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L)

Volatile Organic Compounds

bromomethane ...... 3.8 0.19 172,000 none 0.026 chloromethane ...... 1.9 0.095 none 178 0.39 n-methyl,2-pyrrolidone ...... 15.79 E 0.79 none 734 1.65 trichloroethylene ...... 1.1 0.055 975,000 4 0.5 0.005

Metals

antimony ...... 47 2.4 none 3.15 0.006 arsenic ...... 2.0 0.10 4,580 3 0.25 3 0.0005 cadmium ...... 3.8 0.19 121,000 4 1.0 0.005 chromium ...... 35 1.8 5 2,590 4 5.0 0.1

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Maximum observed Maximum allowable Constituent detected concentration concentration GW (mg/L) Total 1 (mg/kg) TCLP 2 (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L)

copper ...... 1,020 51 none 700 1.3 cyanide ...... 20 1.0 none 91 0.2 lead ...... 24 1.2 none 4 5.0 0.015 nickel ...... 35 1.8 905,000 400 0.750 zinc ...... 14,000 700 none 6,000 11.3 1 Converted to dry weight basis. 2 Estimated from the total concentration (Total/20). 3 Set at groundwater concentration corresponding to 1 × 10 ¥5 excess cancer risk. 4 Based on the toxicity characteristic in 40 CFR 261 subpart C. 5 Based on assuming 100% hexavalent chromium. E—Estimated (Constituent not present in calibration standard. Calculated using total peak area from reconstructed ion chromatogram w/response factor of 1. Concentration converted to dry weight and represents the sum of NMP and NMP-like TICs).

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 244 cubic yards. However, since subpart C of 40 CFR pursuant to delisting this waste? naturally occurring concentrations of § 261.11(c). arsenic are often higher than allowable For this delisting determination, we IV. Conditions for Exclusion assumed that the waste would be concentrations set by the DRAS at a risk × ¥6 disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we of 1 10 , EPA set the allowable A. When would EPA finalize the considered transport of waste concentration of leachable arsenic at a proposed delisting exclusion? × ¥5 constituents through ground water, target cancer risk of 1 10 , which HSWA specifically requires the EPA surface water and air. We evaluated corresponds to a concentration at the to provide notice and an opportunity for Owosso’s petitioned waste using the point of exposure of approximately one comment before granting or denying a Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment twentieth of the existing Safe Drinking final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not Software (DRAS) to predict the Water Act (SDWA) Maximum make a final decision or grant an concentration of hazardous constituents Contaminant Level (MCL). Arsenic is exclusion until it has addressed all that might be released from the not expected to be a major constituent timely public comments on today’s petitioned waste and to determine if the of concern in this waste. proposal, including any at public waste would pose a threat. To predict We used the maximum estimated hearings. the potential for release to groundwater annual waste volume and the maximum Since this rule would reduce the from landfilled wastes and subsequent reported total and estimated leachate existing requirements for persons routes of exposure to a receptor, the concentrations as inputs to estimate the generating hazardous wastes, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors constituent concentrations in the regulated community does not need a derived from EPA’s Composite Model ground water, soil, surface water or air. six-month period to come into for leachate migration with If, using an appropriate analytical compliance in accordance with section Transformation Products. From a release method, a constituent was not detected 3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA. to ground water, the DRAS considers in any sample, it was considered not to B. How will Owosso manage the waste routes of exposure to a human receptor be present in the waste. if it is delisted? of ingestion of contaminated ground F. What did EPA conclude about If the petitioned waste is delisted, water, inhalation from groundwater Owosso’s waste? Owosso must dispose of it in a Subtitle while showering and dermal contact D landfill which is permitted, licensed, from groundwater while bathing. The maximum reported or registered by a state to manage From a release to surface water by concentrations of the hazardous industrial waste. erosion of waste from an open landfill constituents found in this waste are into storm water run-off, DRAS presented in the table above. The table C. What are the maximum allowable evaluates the exposure to a human also presents the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion concentrations. The concentrations of constituents in the waste? of drinking water. From a release of all constituents in both the waste and Concentrations measured in the TCLP waste particles and volatile emissions to the leachate are below the allowable (or Oily Waste Extraction Procedure, air from the surface of an open landfill, concentrations. We, therefore, conclude where appropriate) extract of the waste DRAS considers routes of exposure of that Owosso’s wastewater treatment of the following constituents must not inhalation of volatile constituents, sludge is not a substantial or potential exceed the following (mg/l): inhalation of particles, and air hazard to human health and the Antimony—3.15; arsenic—0.25; deposition of particles on residential environment when disposed of in a cadmium—1; chromium—5; lead—5; soil and subsequent ingestion of the Subtitle D landfill. and zinc—6,000. contaminated soil by a child. The We, therefore, propose to grant an technical support document and the exclusion for this waste. If this D. How frequently must Owosso test the user’s guide to DRAS are included in exclusion is finalized, Owosso must waste? the docket. dispose of this waste in a Subtitle D Owosso must analyze a representative At a target cancer risk of 1 × 10¥6 and landfill permitted or licensed by a state, sample of the wastewater treatment a target hazard quotient of 1.0, the and will remain obligated to verify that sludges on an annual basis to DRAS program determined maximum the waste meets the allowable demonstrate that the constituents of allowable concentrations for each concentrations set forth here. Owosso concern in the petitioned waste do not constituent in both the waste and the must also continue to determine exceed the concentrations of concern in leachate at an annual waste volume of whether the waste is identified in section IV.C above. Owosso must use

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67923

methods with sufficient analytical seq. to reopen a delisting decision if we collection burden under the provisions sensitivity and appropriate quality receive new information indicating that of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 control procedures. SW–846 Method the conditions of this exclusion have (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 1311 must be used for generation of the been violated, or are otherwise not being applies to a particular facility only. leachate extract used in the testing of met. Because this rule is of particular the delisting levels if oil and grease G. What must Owosso do if the process applicability relating to a particular comprise less than one percent of the changes? facility, it is not subject to the regulatory waste. SW–846 Method 1330A must be flexibility provisions of the Regulatory used for generation of the leaching If Owosso significantly changes the Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or extract if oil and grease comprise 1 manufacturing or treatment process or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the percent or more of the waste. SW–846 the chemicals used in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Method 9071B must be used for manufacturing or treatment process, (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this determination of oil and grease. SW–846 Owosso may not handle the wastewater rule will affect only a particular facility, Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are treatment sludge generated from the it will not significantly or uniquely incorporated by reference in 40 CFR new process under this exclusion until affect small governments, as specified in 260.11. A total analysis of the waste it has demonstrated to the EPA that the section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule (accounting for any filterable liquids waste meets the concentrations set in will affect only a particular facility, this and the dilution factor inherent in the section IV.C and that no new hazardous final rule does not have federalism TCLP method) may be used to estimate constituents listed in Appendix VIII of implications. It will not have substantial the TCLP concentration as provided for 40 CFR part 261 have been introduced. direct effects on the States, on the in section 1.2 of Method 1311. Owosso must manage wastes generated relationship between the national after the process change as hazardous E. What data must Owosso submit? government and the States, or on the waste until Owosso has received written distribution of power and Owosso must submit the data notice from EPA that the delisting is responsibilities among the various obtained through annual verification reinstated. levels of government, as specified in testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’, Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, V. How would this action affect the states? (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, upon the anniversary of the effective Executive Order 13132 does not apply date of this exclusion. Owosso must Because EPA is issuing today’s to this rule. compile, summarize, and maintain on exclusion under the federal RCRA site records of operating conditions and delisting program, only states subject to Similarly, because this rule will affect analytical data. Owosso must make federal RCRA delisting provisions only a particular facility, this final rule these records available for inspection. would be affected. This exclusion may does not have tribal implications, as All data must be accompanied by a not be effective in states which have specified in Executive Order 13175, signed copy of the certification received our authorization to make their ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). own delisting decisions. Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR EPA allows states to impose their own 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, F. What happens if Owosso fails to meet non-RCRA regulatory requirements that Executive Order 13175 does not apply the conditions of the exclusion? are more stringent than EPA’s, under to this rule. This rule also is not subject If Owosso violates the terms and section 3009 of RCRA. These more to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of conditions established in the exclusion, stringent requirements may include a Children from Environmental Health the Agency may start procedures to provision that prohibits a federally Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, withdraw the exclusion. issued exclusion from taking effect in April 23, 1997), because it is not If the verification testing of the waste the state. We urge petitioners to contact economically significant as defined in does not meet the delisting the state regulatory authority to Executive Order 12866, and because the concentrations described in section IV.C establish the status of their wastes under Agency does not have reason to believe above or other data (including but not the state law. the environmental health or safety risks limited to leachate data or groundwater EPA has also authorized some states addressed by this action present a monitoring data) relevant to the delisted to administer a delisting program in disproportionate risk to children. The waste indicates that any constituent is at place of the federal program, that is, to basis for this belief is that the Agency a concentration in the leachate higher make state delisting decisions. used DRAS, which considers health and than the specified delisting Therefore, this exclusion does not apply safety risks to children, to calculate the concentration, or is in the groundwater in those authorized states. If Owosso maximum allowable concentrations for at a concentration higher than the manages the waste in any state with this rule. This rule is not subject to maximum allowable groundwater delisting authorization, Owosso must Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions concentration (in the table in Section obtain delisting authorization from that Concerning Regulations That III.D.), Owosso must notify the Agency state before it can manage the waste as Significantly Affect Energy Supply, within 10 days of first possessing or nonhazardous in that state. Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May being made aware of the data. The 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant exclusion will be suspended and the VI. Statutory and Executive Order regulatory action under Executive Order waste managed as hazardous until Reviews 12866. This rule does not involve Owosso has received written approval Under Executive Order 12866, technical standards; thus, the from the Agency to continue the ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review ’’ (58 requirements of section 12(d) of the exclusion. Owosso may provide FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is National Technology Transfer and sampling results which support the not of general applicability and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. continuation of the delisting exclusion. therefore, is not a regulatory action 272 note) do not apply. As required by The EPA has the authority under subject to review by the Office of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, RCRA and the Administrative Management and Budget (OMB). This ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 FR 4729, Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et rule does not impose an information February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

EPA has taken the necessary steps to Dated: October 26, 2010. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, Bruce F. Sypniewski, 6922, and 6938. minimize potential litigation, and Acting Director, Land and Chemicals provide a clear legal standard for Division. 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to part affected conduct. 261 add the following waste stream in For the reasons set out in the alphabetical order by facility to read as List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 follows: CFR part 261 as follows: Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes Reporting and recordkeeping PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 requirements. LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 1. The authority citation for part 261 U.S.C. 6921(f). continues to read as follows:

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

******* Owosso Graphic Arts .. Owosso, Michigan ...... Wastewater treatment sludges, F006, generated at Owosso Graphic Arts (Owosso) facility in Owosso, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 244 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes effective as of [insert final publication date]. 1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent concentrations measured in a leachate extract may not exceed the following concentrations (mg/L): antimony—3.15; arsenic—0.25; cadmium— 1; chromium—5; lead—5; and zinc—6,000. (B) Maximum allowable groundwater concentrations (mg/L) are as follows: antimony—0.006; arsenic—0.0005; cadmium—0.005; chromium—0.1; lead—0.015; and zinc—11.3. 2. Annual Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting concentrations, Owosso must collect and analyze one waste sample on an annual basis using methods with appropriate detection concentrations and elements of quality control. SW–846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of the leachate extract used in the testing of the delisting levels if oil and grease comprise less than 1 percent of the waste. SW–846 Method 1330A must be used for generation of the leaching extract if oil and grease comprise 1 percent or more of the waste. SW–846 Method 9071B must be used for determination of oil and grease. SW–846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. A total analysis of the waste (accounting for any filterable liquids and the dilution factor inherent in the TCLP method) may be used to estimate the TCLP concentration as provided for in section 1.2 of Method 1311. 3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Owosso must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process significantly change. Owosso must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has: Demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the delisting concentrations in section 1.; demonstrated that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced; and it has received written approval from EPA. 4. Data Submittals: Owosso must submit the data obtained through verification testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to U.S. EPA Region 5, RCRA Delisting Program (LR–8J), 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. The annual verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. Owosso must compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and analytical data. Owosso must make these records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:51 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67925

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

5. Reopener Language—(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Owosso pos- sesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration, or is in the groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable groundwater concentration in paragraph (1), then Owosso must report such data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. (B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify Owosso in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Owosso with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Owosso shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information. (D) If after 30 days Owosso presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.

*******

* * * * * Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication Federal Information Relay Service [FR Doc. 2010–27886 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] of this 12-month petition finding, we (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P will add C. wrightii to our candidate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list C. wrightii as our priorities Background DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR allow. We will make any determination Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered on critical habitat during development Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et Fish and Wildlife Service of the proposed rule. In the interim seq.) requires that, for any petition to period, we will address the status of the revise the List of Endangered and 50 CFR Part 17 candidate taxon through our annual Threatened Wildlife that contains Candidate Notice of Review. substantial scientific and commercial [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0060; MO information that listing may be 92210–0–0008] DATES: The finding announced in this warranted, we make a finding within document was made on November 4, 12 months of the date of receipt of the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 2010. and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a petition on whether the petitioned Petition to List Cirsium wrightii ADDRESSES: This finding is available on action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) (Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as the Internet at http:// warranted, or (c) warranted, but the Endangered or Threatened www.regulations.gov at Docket Number immediate proposal of a regulation FWS–R2–ES–2009–0060. Supporting implementing the petitioned action is AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, documentation we used in preparing precluded by other pending proposals to Interior. this finding is available for public determine whether species are ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition inspection, by appointment, during threatened or endangered, and finding. normal business hours by contacting the expeditious progress is being made to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New add or remove qualified species from SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Mexico Ecological Services Office, 2105 the Federal Lists of Endangered and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113. Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section finding on a petition to list Cirsium Please submit any new information, 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) as materials, comments, or questions treat a petition for which the requested endangered or threatened and to concerning this finding to the above action is found to be warranted but designate critical habitat under the address. precluded as though resubmitted on the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as date of such finding, that is, requiring a amended. After review of all available FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: subsequent finding to be made within scientific and commercial information, Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 12 months. We must publish these we find that listing C. wrightii as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New findings in the Federal Register. endangered or threatened throughout its Mexico Ecological Services Field Office range is warranted. Currently, however, (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 505– Previous Federal Actions listing of C. wrightii is precluded by 346–4781; or by facsimile at 505–346– On October 15, 2008, we received a higher priority actions to amend the 2542. If you use a telecommunications petition from the WildEarth Guardians, Lists of Endangered and Threatened device for the deaf (TDD), please call the dated October 9, 2008, requesting that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67926 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

we list Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh but are vivid pink in the Santa Rosa, status of the species in Mexico is thistle) as endangered or threatened New Mexico, locality (Sivinski 1996, p. uncertain, with few verified collections under the Act. Additionally, the 1). In New Mexico, the species occurs in of the plant. Numerous surveys of petitioner requested that critical habitat wet, alkaline soils in spring seeps and potential habitat have been conducted be designated concurrent with listing of marshy edges of streams and ponds over the years with few new localities C. wrightii. In a November 26, 2008, between 3,450 and 7,850 ft (1,152 and documented (e.g., Poole 1992, 2010; letter to the petitioner, we responded 2,393 m) in elevation (Sivinski 1996, p. Sivinski 1994, 1996, 2005, 2009a; that we had reviewed the petition and 1; 2005a, pp. 3–4; Worthington 2002a). Worthington 2002a). determined that an emergency listing Cirsium wrightii is a wetland obligate Cirsium wrightii is ranked by was not necessary. We also stated that, (occurs only in water-saturated soils) NatureServe as a G2 (imperiled) species. to the maximum extent practicable, we that was originally collected in 1851 at It was changed from G3 (vulnerable) to would address their petition within 90 San Bernardino Cienaga, Cochise G2 in 2003 (NatureServe 2009, p. 1). days. County, Arizona (Gray 1853, p. 101; Similarly, its National Status ranking for The petition asserted that water Smithsonian 1849, p. 1). Historically, the United States is N2 (imperiled due diversion, habitat loss and degradation the species was found in Arizona, New to a restricted range and very few through current livestock grazing, Mexico, and Chihuahua, Mexico (Gray populations) (NatureServe 2009, p. 2). inadequate regulatory mechanisms, 1853, p. 101; Coulter 1891, p. 244; Though these rankings do not provide weed control, nonnative species, Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 952; any regulatory protections, the drought, and climate change threaten C. Correll and Johnston 1970, p. 1719; U.S. NatureServe designations do serve to wrightii. During our review of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) notify the public of the species’ status. petition, we found that the majority of 1995, p. 1). Recently it was learned that In New Mexico, there are eight information cited in the petition was not an occurrence of another sunflower, general confirmed locations of Cirsium readily available to us. Therefore, on Cirsium texanum (Texas thistle), in wrightii: Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County; December 18, 2008, we requested that Presidio County, Texas, had been Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge the petitioner provide references. On incorrectly identified as C. wrightii (BLNWR), Chaves County; Blue Spring, February 13, 2009, the petitioner (Poole 2010, p. 1). All of the previously Eddy County; La Luz Canyon, Karr provided additional references. presumed specimens of C. wrightii from Canyon, Silver Springs, and Tularosa On September 10, 2009, we published Texas have now been correctly Creek, Otero County; and Alamosa a 90-day finding in the Federal Register identified as Cirsium texanum (Texas Creek, Socorro County (Bridge 2001, p. that the petition presented substantial thistle), rather than C. wrightii (Sivinski 1; Sivinski and Bleakly 2004, p. 2; information that listing C. wrightii may 1994a, p. 1; 1996, p. 2; 2006a, p. 1; NMRPTC 2009, p. 1; Sivinski 1994, p. be warranted. That document also Worthington 2002a, p. 4). These species 1; 1996, p. 2; 2005, p. 1; 2005a, pp. 3– initiated a status review of the are easily confused on herbarium sheets 5; 2009, 2009a; Service 1998, p. 1; subspecies (74 FR 46542). On February (Sivinski 1996, p. 2). However, in the Worthington 2002, p. 1; 2002a, pp. 1–3). 11, 2010, WildEarth Guardians filed suit field, C. wrightii differs from C. texanum Four of the eight localities are clustered against the Service for failure to issue a in physical appearance (New Mexico within about 10 miles (mi) (16 12-month finding on the petition Rare Plant Technical Council kilometers (km)) of each other on the (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. (NMRPTC) 2009, p. 1)). The presumed west slope of the Sacramento 10-cv-00122 BRB–DJS (D.N.M.)). Texas specimens of C. wrightii that were Mountains, Otero County, whereas the Pursuant to a stipulated settlement previously identified from herbarium remaining four localities are widely agreement, the 12-month finding is due sheets, rather than field identification, disjunct, separated from the Sacramento to the Federal Register by October 31, have been found to be C. texanum localities by about 75 to 140 mi (120 to 2010. This notice constitutes our 12- (Sivinski 1996, p. 2). 225 km) and from each other by about month finding for the petition to list C. In the New Mexico portion of the 75 to 215 mi (120 to 345 km). In the wrightii as threatened or endangered species’ range, Cirsium wrightii appears Sacramento Mountains, two of these with critical habitat. to be an obligate of seeps, springs, and four localities occur on the Lincoln wetlands that have saturated soils with National Forest, one locality is on Species Information surface or subsurface water flow private land and the remaining locality Cirsium wrightii is a biennial (a plant (Sivinski 1996; Service 1998; is on the Mescalero Apache Reservation. completing development in 2 years, Worthington 2002a, p. 2; NMRPTC In the Pecos River Valley, one locality flowering its second year) or a weak 2009). Plants commonly found in areas is on public lands on the BLNWR, monocarpic perennial (a plant that inhabited by this species include Chaves County; one is on private land flowers, sets seed, then dies), in the Scirpus spp. (bulrush), Salix spp. near the Black River, Eddy County; and sunflower family (Asteraceae). The (willow), Baccharis glutinosa one is in the vicinity of Santa Rosa, plant is prickly with short black spines (seepwillow), Helianthus paradoxus Guadalupe County, on private, and a 3- to 8-foot (ft) (0.9- to 2.4-meter (Pecos sunflower), Juncus spp. (rush), municipal, and State lands. The (m)) single stalk covered with succulent and Typha spp. (cattail) (Sivinski 1996, remaining locality is on private land on leaves (Sivinski 1996, p. 1; Arizona pp. 2–5; Sivinski and Bleakly 2004, p. Alamosa Creek, Socorro County. Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 2; Worthington 2002a, pp. 1–2). Localities vary in relative population 2001, p. 1). Numerous slender flowering size from less than 20 individuals branches emerge from the stalk, starting Distribution and Range covering only about 50 square feet (ft2) about one-third up the length of the Cirsium wrightii currently occurs in ((5 square meters (m2)) at the Silver plant. Branches are terminated by one or New Mexico; however, it has been Springs locality, to several thousand a few small flowering heads, which extirpated from all previously known individuals on BLNWR. have numerous slender phyllaries (a locations in Arizona (Sivinski 1996, pp. Within New Mexico, historic modified leaf associated with the 1, 4, 9, 2006a, 2009a, p. 1; Worthington localities from the City of Roswell land, flower) (Sivinski 1996, p. 1). Flowers are 2002a, p. 4), and was misidentified and Chaves County, Lake Valley in Sierra white to pale pink in areas of the likely not ever present in Texas (Poole County, and La Luz and Haynes Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico, 1992; 2010; Sivinski 1996, p. 2). The Canyons in Otero County are extirpated

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67927

(NMRPTC 2009, p. 2; Sivinski 2005, p. invasive plant Phragmites australis (Service 2010a, p. 6). When C. wrightii 1; 2005a p. 4; 2009a, p. 2). Finally, a (common reed) since the 1995 survey was discovered on BLNWR, the Cirsium species at Rattlesnake Springs, (Sivinski 1996, p. 3; 2009a, p. 2). This population was estimated between Eddy County, is thought to be a hybrid population likely includes additional 1,680 and 2,130 flowering plants between C. wrightii and C. texanum small adjacent localities of scattered (Service 1998, p. 1; 1999, p. 25). (NMRPTC 2009, p. 2). This population individual plants on the Mescalero Sivinski (2005a, p. 3) found there was blooms in May rather than the typical Apache Reservation, but we were no change in this population’s season of C. wrightii from August to unable to survey these Tribal lands (e.g., distribution and abundance between October (NMRPTC 2009, p. 2). see Bridge 2001; Worthington 2002a). 1999 and 2005. In 2009, the population We are unaware of specific long-term Moreover, the possible new locality was estimated to be thousands of monitoring data on absolute abundance found by Worthington (2002) occurs in individuals, the largest known estimates for Cirsium wrightii in New the area. population of C. wrightii (Sivinski Mexico, but have estimates of relative 2009a, p. 2). La Luz Canyon abundance for most extant localities (see Roswell also Sivinski 1996, 2005a, 2006a, 2009, The small La Luz Canyon population 2009a). In 1996, Sivinski completed a of Cirsium wrightii that occurs within Cirsium wrightii historically occurred status assessment of C. wrightii in New about 540 ft2 (50 m2) of spring habitat in North Spring, at the Roswell Country Mexico (Sivinski 1996). He on Forest Service lands was stable at an Club, Roswell, New Mexico (Sivinski subsequently continued to survey and estimated 50 plants both in 1995 and 1996, p. 4). However, the population has monitor C. wrightii localities. 2005 (Sivinski 1996, p. 3; 2005a, p. 4). been extirpated following the alteration Worthington (2002a) conducted surveys However, an adjacent small population and loss of all vegetation, including C. at 12 sites that contained suitable of 10 plants in the same general area on wrightii, as a result of the enclosure of habitat in Karr Canyon, the Rio Penasco private land 3 mi (5.8 km) east of La Luz North Spring with bricks and cement drainage, and in the vicinity of Canyon was extirpated between 1995 (Sivinski 1996, p. 4; New Mexico Sacramento Lake in the Sacramento and 2005, most likely from a severe Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) Mountains on U.S. Forest Service scouring flood and alteration of the 2005a, p. 18). Sivinski surveyed most of (Forest Service) land in 2002. Moreover, spring hydrology that led to the drying the springs in the vicinity of Roswell in he surveyed additional springs, but of habitat (Sivinski 2005a, p. 4; 2009a, 1995 looking for C. wrightii populations found most springs were capped or p. 2). (Sivinski 1996, p. 4). All but one spring had been capped and diverted for captured for municipal use by the City Karr Canyon of Alamogordo (Worthington 2002a, p. domestic water, and no extant or new 3). No new C. wrightii populations were The Karr Canyon/Haynes Creek populations were found (Sivinski 1996, found, although one possible new population of Cirsium wrightii p. 4). locality with plants that lacked the previously included a cluster of a Santa Rosa Wetlands 2 characteristic black tips and had hundred plants within about 1000 ft 2 The Santa Rosa area is a zone of karst different looking leaves was noted (100 m ) of spring habitat within a highway right-of-way that was stable topography (an area of erosive (Worthington 2002). However, the limestone), with numerous sinkhole locality was not photographed, between 1995 and 2005 (Sivinski 1996, p. 2, 2005a, p. 4). Nevertheless, a small lakes and artesian springs (ground water collected, or verified and the accuracy that is under pressure) within a 6-mi of its identification is unknown. population of a few dozen mature plants in the same general area on private land (9.7-km) diameter circular depression. In Arizona, the Service has similarly The localities of C. wrightii are scattered contracted surveys of potential Cirsium was extirpated between 1995 and 2005 and replaced by Phragmites australis within some of the marshes, spring wrightii habitat to verify whether any seeps, and various sinkhole lakes, with populations are extant. These will be (Sivinski 1996, p. 2, 2005a, p. 4; 2009a, p. 2). flowering plants generally rare and completed by October 2010. Below, we occurring throughout 4 sections spread present information on all of the known Silver Springs Canyon out over 4 square miles (mi2) (10 square historic and extant localities of C. The small Silver Springs Canyon kilometers (km2)) on a mixture of State, wrightii rangewide, including those that population of Cirsium wrightii occurs on private, and municipal lands, but the have been extirpated. Forest Service land in a wet meadow total area occupied in this locality is New Mexico and was estimated at 16 mature plants less than 5 acres (ac) (2 hectare (ha)) in 2002 (Worthington 2002, p. 4; 2002a, (Sivinski 1996, p. 4; Sivinski and Tularosa Creek p. 15). The population was observed in Bleakly 2004, pp. 1, 3; Service 2010c, The Tularosa Creek, Otero County, July 2010 and appears to be pp. 1–2). For example, the 116-ac (47- population of Cirsium wrightii occurs on approximately the same size (Service ha) Blue Hole Cienaga locality, owned private land and the Mescalero Apache 2010b, p. 1). This population is growing by the State of New Mexico, is part of Reservation. This population has within a seep and is adjacent to C. the overall population and contains significantly declined since 1995, from vinaceum (Sacramento Mountains sparse occurrences (i.e., not continuous an estimated several thousand thistle) (Worthington 2002, p. 4). in distribution) of C. wrightii along a individual plants along 3.5 mi (5.6 km) spring-fed creek and an adjacent seep of nearly continuous occupied marsh Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Sivinski and Bleakly 2004; Service and wet meadows, to four scattered A large population of Cirsium wrightii 2010c). The other known localities in occupied locales of less than 50 was found at BLNWR in 1998 and is the area include El Rito Creek, private individual flowering plants total along associated with cienagas (wet meadows) lands, ponds at a no-longer-used fish the same stretch in 2009 (Sivinski 1996, and marshes in Units 3, 5, and 6 of the hatchery, Bass Lake, and Perch Lake (a p. 3; 2009a, p. 2). In 1995, this was the refuge (Service 1998, p. 1; 2010, p. 1). large sinkhole that is partially most extensive population in the All known populations of C. wrightii on developed for fishing and picnicking) Sacramento Mountains, but it has BLNWR grow within designated critical (Sivinski 1996; 2005a; 2010a; Sivinski become drier and dominated by the habitat of Helianthus paradoxus and Bleakly 2004). Most of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

municipal habitats are small, but have it was originally collected in 1851, 2009a, p. 1, 2010; CONABIO 2010). The been filled and developed for recreation. although the area was surveyed in 2006 second collection from Los Azules, This active filling of wetlands has led to by The Nature Conservancy (Sivinski Chihuahua, in 1998, was misidentified the loss of C. wrightii plants in recent 2006a, p. 1; 2009a, p. 1). The species is and is not C. wrightii. The third years (Service 2010c). These localities likely extirpated from the State (ADGF collection from Fronteras, Sonora, in support perhaps a few hundred C. 2001, p. 1; Sivinski 1996, p. 4; 2009a, 1890, has not yet been verified (Sivinski wrightii, but the remaining localities are p. 1; Service 2009a, p. 1). 2010, p. 1). As such, the status of the smaller, isolated occurrences (Sivinski species in Mexico is uncertain. Texas 1996, p. 6, 2009a; 2010a, p. 1; Sivinski In summary, there are eight general and Bleakly 2004, p. 3). Between 1995 We found that Cirsium specimens localities of Cirsium wrightii extant and 2005, the overall Santa Rosa from Texas have been confused because within New Mexico. Additional population was thought to be stable, of the difficulty in distinguishing historical populations have been estimated at several thousand plants Cirsium wrightii and C. texanum from extirpated, including at least two larger (Sivinski 1996, p. 4; 2005a, p. 3). herbarium sheets (Sivinski 1994, p. 1; and two smaller populations in New 1994a, p. 1; Sivinski 2006a, p. 1). All of Mexico, and there are no known extant Blue Spring the collections from herbariums and populations in Arizona. The population A new population of Cirsium wrightii references identifying C. wrightii at BLNWR is likely the most robust, was discovered in 2009 at Blue Spring, localities in Texas are in error (Coulter with several thousand individuals. Eddy County, New Mexico (Sivinski 1881, p. 244; Correll and Johnson 1970, Santa Rosa contains mostly sparse 2009). This population was estimated at p. 1719; Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. scattered localities throughout four several hundred to a few thousand 952; Martin and Hutchins 1981, p. 2002; sections of land, and some of these have plants and occupies about 1 mi (1.6 km) Sivinski 1994, p. 1; 1996, p. 5; Texas been extirpated recently. The of riparian habitat (Sivinski 2009, p. 1). A&M University 1975, p. 89). population along Tularosa Creek has Water flow at Blue Spring is generally Furthermore, the presumed location undergone a significant reduction since perennial along the 2.5-mi (4-km) run from Presidio, Texas, that we identified 1995. The remaining populations in the that flows into the Black River (a in the 90-day finding (74 FR 46544), is Sacramento Mountains are all small, tributary of the Pecos) near Black River not C. wrightii, but most likely an containing from 15 to perhaps several Village, New Mexico (NMDGF 2007, p. undescribed species from northern hundred individuals. The populations 15). We have no other information on Mexico (Poole 2010, p. 1). at Blue Spring and Alamosa Springs this locality, as it was just discovered in Poole (1992) evaluated 74 cienagas in were recently discovered, and there 2009. Texas and conducted botanical surveys have been no subsequent surveys to at 33 of the locations within the highest Alamosa Springs determine whether these populations potential habitat (i.e., springs and are stable or declining. The collections Another population of Cirsium wetlands) for the Helianthus paradoxus, from Texas were misidentified, and we wrightii was discovered in 2005 at which has similar habitat requirements conclude C. wrightii never occurred in Alamosa Springs, Socorro County, New and sometimes overlaps with C. the State. Finally, there is only one Mexico (Sivinski 2005, p. 1). There were wrightii. No C. wrightii locations were verified historic collection from Mexico, an estimated 500–1,000 flowering adults found during these extensive botanical and no recent information on the status and rosettes confined to a small, spring- surveys (Poole 1992). Similarly, we of the species from this population. For fed wetland within the Alamosa Creek reviewed information from and these reasons, the status of this species Valley (a tributary of the Rio Grande), contacted botanists who have surveyed remains tenuous. but none of the plants occurred along the Diamond Y Preserve, Pecos County, Alamosa Creek (Sivinski 2005, p. 1; Texas, owned by The Nature Summary of Information Pertaining to 2010a, pp. 1–2). The remaining springs Conservancy. This preserve shares some the Five Factors for Cirsium wrightii in the Alamosa Creek Valley are on of the same habitat characteristics, and Section 4 of the Act and private land and have not been many of the imperiled species, found on implementing regulations (50 CFR part surveyed. BLNWR, including Pecos assiminea 424) set forth procedures for adding Lake Valley (Assiminea pecos), Pecos gambusia species to the Federal Lists of (Gambusia nobilis), and Helianthus A population of Cirsium wrightii was Endangered and Threatened Wildlife paradoxus (Service 2005, pp. 4, 8; 2007, and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the historically located within Lake Valley, p. 10; Poole 2010, p. 1). We found that Sierra County, New Mexico, but is Act, a species may be determined to be Diamond Y has been thoroughly endangered or threatened based on any considered extirpated (Sivinski 2005). surveyed, and it does not appear that C. This site is now an abandoned mining of the following five factors: wrightii occurs on the preserve. Because (A) The present or threatened settlement, but was historically a series we do not have any verified historic of marshes and cienagas. The area was destruction, modification, or collections or known extant populations diked, channeled, and drained in the curtailment of its habitat or range; from any locations in Texas (Poole 2010, early 1900s and converted to row-crop (B) Overutilization for commercial, p. 1; 2010a, p. 1), we conclude that C. agriculture (Sivinski 2005, p. 1). There recreational, scientific, or educational wrightii has never been present within is no longer suitable habitat for C. purposes; the State. (C) Disease or predation; wrightii within the valley (Sivinski (D) The inadequacy of existing Mexico 2005, p. 1). regulatory mechanisms; or Arizona We have not been able to obtain any (E) Other natural or manmade factors recent information on Cirsium wrightii affecting its continued existence. San Bernardino Cienaga in Mexico. In fact, we have located only In making this finding, information The population at the type locality three herbarium specimens that were pertaining to Cirsium wrightii, in (the place where the species was first collected in Mexico. One specimen was relation to the five factors provided in found) from San Bernardino Cienaga, collected in 1982 at Cerro Angostura section 4(a)(1) of the Act, is discussed Arizona, has not been found again since Spring, Chihuahua, Mexico (Sivinski below.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67929

In making our 12-month finding on a diminishing habitat quantity and summer precipitation can be very petition to list Cirsium wrightii, we excessive degradation of habitat quality patchy, with some areas receiving considered and evaluated the best for the species throughout its range. considerably less rainfall than others. available scientific and commercial Newton et al. (2009) studied the Availability of Water information. This information includes hydrogeology of the Sacramento the petition and associated documents, Cirsium wrightii is found in Mountains and found that the fractures data from the 1995 through 2009 association with seeps, springs, in the underlying geology exhibit surveys and recent reports (Sivinski marshes, and wetlands that have significant control on surface and 1996, 2005a, 2006a, 2009, 2009a; Forest saturated soils with surface or groundwater flow and possibly Service 2008b; Service 2010b, 2010c), as subsurface water flow (NMRPTC 2009; groundwater recharge. Overall, their well as other information available to Sivinski 1996, pp. 2–7; Service 1998, p. data suggest that the recharge of water us. The following analysis examines the 2; Worthington 2002a, p. 2). wells and groundwater is correlated to five factors described in section 4(a)(1) Southwestern riparian and aquatic the amount of precipitation during of the Act and those activities and systems fluctuate due to seasonal and monsoon storms at all elevations conditions currently affecting C. longer term drought and wet periods, (Newton et al. 2009, p. 22). Wet periods wrightii, or are likely to affect the floods, and fire. Habitats with during summer months can significantly species within the foreseeable future. fluctuating water levels create contribute to recharge of the ground In considering what factors might circumstances in which population water in the Sacramento Mountains, but constitute threats to a species, we must sizes may vary over time, and these are extremely rare events (Newton look beyond the exposure of the species populations may be periodically et al. 2009). As such, drought has to a particular factor to evaluate whether extirpated. Because the species occurs impacted the recharge of ground water the species may respond to that factor only in areas that are water-saturated, tables throughout the Sacramento in a way that causes actual impacts to populations have a high potential for Mountains (Forest Service 2008, p. 22). the species. If there is exposure to a extirpation when habitat dries due to For this reason, the seasonal factor and the species responds ground and surface water depletion, distribution of yearly precipitation can negatively, the factor may be a threat draining of wetlands, or drought. Loss of result in temporary drought conditions and, during the status review, we water from C. wrightii habitat occurs and reduced water availability for some attempt to determine how significant a through changing precipitation patterns, C. wrightii localities within this threat it is. The threat is significant if it drought, or as a result of human impacts mountain range. drives, or contributes to, the risk of from groundwater pumping In 1995 and 2005, Sivinski (2005a, pp. extinction of the species such that the (withdrawal) or diversion of surface 3–4) monitored the relative size of species warrants listing as endangered water; this can lead to the degradation Cirsium wrightii localities rangewide to or threatened as those terms are defined and extirpation of Cirsium wrightii document the relationship between in the Act. However, the identification habitat (Sivinski 1996, p. 5; 2005, p. 1; water availability in suitable habitat and of factors that could impact a species Forest Service 2008, p. 19). Moreover, numbers and extent of plants. He found negatively may not be sufficient to the drying of C. wrightii habitat has led that, when some localities dried, the compel a finding that the species to retractions of occurrence boundaries, localities were either extirpated or much warrants listing. The information must a reduction in the numbers of plants, reduced in size (Sivinski 2005a, pp. 3– include evidence sufficient to suggest and, in some cases, a loss of all 4). Moreover, drying of occupied habitat that these factors are operative threats individuals at several localities also resulted in Typha latifolia (cattail) that act on the species to the point that (Sivinski 2005a, pp. 3–4). For example, being replaced by dense stands of the species may meet the definition of during the dry conditions from 1994 to Phragmites australis (Sivinski 2005a, endangered or threatened under the Act. 1996, many seeps and springs in the pp. 3–4), which may outcompete native Sacramento Mountains ceased flowing vegetation including C. wrightii and A. Present or Threatened Destruction, and were completely dry (Sivinski significantly increase the threat of Modification, or Curtailment of the 2006b, p. 12). Naturally occurring water wildfire (see discussion below under Species’ Habitat or Range loss from changes in precipitation ‘‘Phragmites australis’’). The most significant threat to Cirsium patterns have affected the volume of Drought also affects the size of an wrightii is the alteration of the water flow at numerous springs in the extant locality, even when the water hydrology of its rare wetland habitat. In Sacramento Mountains (Forest Service source does not dry out completely. The fact, much of the habitat of C. wrightii 2003, p. 43). most severe drought recorded in New has been and continues to be severely Mexico occurred between 1950 and Drought altered and degraded because of past 1956. If drought reduces the amount of and present land and water management The National Weather Service groundwater recharge regionally, spring practices including: agriculture and Forecast Office and the U.S. Drought discharge or the areal extent of wetlands urban development, diversion of Monitor for New Mexico indicate that could also be reduced. Prolonged springs, and drought. As described the Sacramento Mountains experienced drought can lead to diminishment or below, all of the extant localities may be a severe to extreme drought from 2003 drying of springs, which would have a affected by long-term drought, whereas to 2008 (Forest Service 2008, p. 22). negative impact on Cirsium wrightii or four of the largest C. wrightii localities This has led to unusually low stream or its habitat. Comparing historical at Blue Spring, BLNWR, Santa Rosa, and spring flows and, in some instances, no discharges reported in the Black River Alamosa Creek have the potential to be flow (e.g., see South Central Mountain from 1952 to 1956 (daily mean flow of further modified by ongoing and future 2002, p. 12; Shomaker 2006, p. 8; 15.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) (0.436 water withdrawal. Changes in water Gardner and Thompson 2008, p. 2; cubic meters per second (cms))) to tables throughout the range of C. Newton et al. 2009; Sivinski 2005a, pp. recent discharges (2002 to 2006, daily wrightii have often resulted in 3–4, Forest Service 2003, pp. 53–54). mean flow of 10.1 cfs (0.286 cms)), diminished discharge from springs or This is likely related to severe drought flows in the Black River are currently complete loss of surface water. conditions (Sivinski 2005a, pp. 1, 3–4). lower than flows during the extreme Therefore, there has been a trend of Within New Mexico, monsoonal drought of the 1950s (NMDGF 2007, p.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

26). Prolonged drought could adversely for C. wrightii, although it has not been recent and ongoing drought, leading to impact habitat conditions by reducing specifically investigated. increased degradation of wetland and hydrologic discharge through the The severe decline in available riparian habitat (Forest Service 2008, p. wetland system, thereby desiccating surface and ground water since the 23), which contain Cirsium wrightii riparian plant communities (e.g., see 1990s is due largely to drought and localities. In the Sacramento Mountains, NMDGF 2008, p. 33), including C. human use (e.g., Shomaker 2006, pp. 8, C. wrightii occurrences have been and wrightii. Because of the documented 20, 26). Cirsium wrightii occurrences in will continue to be altered and extirpation and population reductions La Luz Canyon are within the municipal potentially degraded by the issuance of of the species caused by drought and the supply watershed, where pipelines a special use permit to maintain and possibility of more widespread drought divert water to the City of Alamogordo operate water withdrawal from Forest accompanying climate change, we (Shomaker 2006, pp. 20, 26; Forest Service lands (Forest Service 2008, p. conclude that drought constitutes a Service 2008, p. 21). The number of 26). Development of additional water threat to C. wrightii, both now and in the water wells drilled on both private and rights will likely dewater C. wrightii foreseeable future. National Forest System lands within localities, constituting a threat to the this area has increased since the 1950s, species in this area for the foreseeable Ground and Surface Water Depletion with the 1980s and 1990s being the future. Habitat loss due to ground and surface most active years for drilling of Moreover, the Blue Spring and Santa water depletion is a threat to Cirsium domestic use wells (Forest Service 2008, Rosa occurrences of Cirsium wrightii are p. 22). The total permitted groundwater within areas where water is currently wrightii. Sivinski (1994, pp. 1–2; 1996, extraction is approximately 2,400 acre drained from wetlands or diverted or p. 4; 2005, p. 1; 2006, p. 4) reported loss feet per year (300 hectare-meters per withdrawn for domestic use, which may or degradation of habitat from water year) (98,000,000 gallons per year) contribute to degradation and loss of its diversion or draining of wetlands in (370,000,000 liters per year) from nearly habitat (Sivinski 1996, p. 5; 2009; 2009a; Chaves, Otero, and Sierra Counties, New 300 wells (Forest Service 2008, p. 22). NMDGF 2007, pp. 14, 17, 22). Mexico, areas that historically In 2002, the New Mexico State Additionally, any activity that would supported Cirsium wrightii. Increased Engineer declared the La Luz Canyon interrupt the flow of water from water extraction in the last 100 years watershed as a Critical Management Alamosa Creek has the potential to has contributed to the dramatic decline Area, which means no new groundwater impact C. wrightii. Currently, irrigation of most surface spring systems in the appropriations would be allowed for and domestic use from about 50 farms Chihuahuan Desert (see Corps 2006, p. nondomestic purposes (Forest Service does not appear to have reduced the 4; Karges 2003 and references therein). 2008, p. 22). However, for domestic baseflow of about 9 cfs (0.3 cms) from An historical population in Lake Valley, purposes, the demand for water use this spring-fed system (Sierra Soil and Sierra County, New Mexico, was through surface diversion and ground Water Conservation Service 2008, p. 2). extirpated when the wetlands were water withdrawals is expected to However, Alamosa Creek would likely drained and converted to agricultural increase as a result of the population be negatively affected by long-term use (Sivinski 2005, p. 1; 2006a, p. 1). increase. The human population in drought. Moreover, the appropriation of water Alamogordo, Otero County, New The effects of ongoing and past rights from springs for a ‘‘beneficial Mexico, increased from about 30,000 to maintenance and operation of existing use,’’ such as livestock water, farming, 36,000 from 1995 to 2000, and is water diversions can also limit the size domestic use, or recreational facilities, expected to increase to about 56,000 by of Cirsium wrightii populations (Corps typically uses points of diversion that 2040 (South Central Mountain 2002, p. 2007, p. 29). For example, the C. can curtail natural surface flows and 11). An increasing human population wrightii population on City of Roswell affect C. wrightii populations. For and its associated agricultural and lands has been extirpated at this example, aquifers in the Sacramento economic activities will require location since the habitat is no longer Mountains, which contain half of all additional water from this relatively dry suitable for the plant (NMDGF 2005, pp. known C. wrightii localities, are region. 33–34; Sivinski 1996, pp. 4–5; 2006a, p. susceptible to appropriation by existing Current New Mexico State law 5). Loss of springs and surface water water rights and development of new provides that anyone may obtain a flow in streams resulting from human water rights, which may pose future permit for a domestic well, no matter use and drought have occurred threats to the species (Service 2008, pp. what the consequences for anyone else’s throughout the Roswell Artesian Basin 12, 23; Forest Service 2008, pp. 23–24). water rights or the impact of water in New Mexico, often resulting in The marshes, springs, and seeps within resources for the area (e.g., see Belin et diminished discharge from springs or La Luz Canyon of the Sacramento al. 2003, p. 72). Between 2005 and 2045, complete loss of surface water (Taylor Mountains are currently and were likely the City of Alamogordo’s water demand 1983, 1987; NMDGF 2005, 2005a, p. 17; historically diverted or drained for is expected to increase from 7,140 acre- Jones and Balleau 1996, pp. 4, 12). irrigation and agricultural use (Sivinski feet per year to 10,842 acre-feet per year Many of these spring systems could 1996, p. 5; South Central Mountain (881 hectare-meters per year to 1337 have harbored populations of C. 2002, p. 20). Many springs and streams hectare-meters per year) (Shomaker wrightii; however, it is not possible to in the Sacramento Mountains that were 2006, pp. 43–44). By 2045, the City of determine the extent of the loss of C. perennial during the 1900s have become Alamogordo will likely have a projected wrightii populations because many intermittent or have dried completely, deficit of 6,258 acre-feet per year (772 springs went dry before surveys could including La Luz Creek (Abercrombie hectare-meters per year) (more than 2 be conducted. Peak annual pumping of 2003, p. 3). In this area, loss of water billion gallons per year) (more than 8 the alluvial aquifer (a water-bearing flow from human activities related to billion liters per year) (Shomaker 2006, deposit of sand and gravel) in the roads, trails, and the capture of spring p. 44). Withdrawal and diversion of Roswell Basin occurred in the 1950s. water for municipal use have also been water from wells located on Forest Since the 1950s, administration and observed to affect the threatened species Service and private lands would metering of groundwater extraction in Cirsium vinaceum (Forest Service 2003, continue to increase for the foreseeable the basin by the New Mexico Office of pp. 42–43). The same likely holds true future and compound the effects of the the State Engineer has resulted in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67931

stabilization of groundwater levels 2007; cited in NMDGF 2007, p. 25). This 10.1 cfs (0.286 cms)), flows in the Black (NMDGF 2005a, p. 18). constitutes a significant threat to this River are currently lower than during As artesian wells were developed in locality. the drought of the 1950s (NMDGF 2007, the area, discharge from the major In summary, the alteration and loss of p. 31). Moreover, Sivinski (2005a, pp. springs declined proportionately and habitat that currently supports C. 3–4) reports that springs and wet valleys some of these springs cease to flow wrightii, due to groundwater and surface have been affected by drought in at least (Jones and Balleau 1996, p. 4). Surface water depletion, will continue and three canyons of the Sacramento water flow on BLNWR has also been likely increase in the foreseeable future. Mountains, New Mexico, resulting in diminished by groundwater pumping, Because this species is dependent on reduced C. wrightii populations. Similar as evidenced by the dead springs on Salt water, we find that long-term drought in water loss may occur within other C. Creek and documented reduction in combination with ground and surface wrightii localities, as analyzed above. If spring flows on the refuge (Jones and water withdrawal is currently a climate change leads to future drought, Balleau 1996; p. 12). Aerial photos significant threat to C. wrightii and its additional dewatering and reduction of which show a larger, meandering habitat, and will continue to be in the C. wrightii habitat may occur. channel for Bitter Creek are also foreseeable future. Although the information available on evidence that discharge from Bitter climate change indicates that New Climate Change Creek was once greater (Service 2005a; Mexico will be impacted (New Mexico 70 FR 46312, August 9, 2005). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Advisory Group 2006, Additionally, BLNWR actively lowers Climate Change (IPCC) states that p. 1), there is no information specific to the water levels in wetlands during warming of the climate system is the effects of climate change on Cirsium spring and summer (Service 2006, p. 2). unequivocal, based on observations of wrightii or its habitat. Reliable It is unknown how C. wrightii responds increases in global average air and ocean predictive models have not been to these changing water levels on the temperatures, widespread melting of developed for use at the local scale (i.e., refuge, but if soils are not continuously snow and ice, and rising global average the eight occupied localities), and there saturated throughout the growing sea level (2007a, p. 5). For the next two is little certainty regarding the timing season, the species is likely impacted. decades, a warming of about 0.4 degrees and magnitude of the resulting impacts. Information from other localities Fahrenheit (°F) (0.2 degrees Celsius (°C)) For example, the vulnerability of C. suggests that populations likely contract per decade is projected (IPCC 2007a, p. wrightii habitats to a drying climate or habitat may become invaded by 12). Temperature projections for the depends, in large part, on the sources of Phragmites australis as water is following years increasingly depend on their water supply. The sources of water withdrawn and parts of the occupied specific emission scenarios (IPCC 2007a, to C. wrightii habitats are precipitation, wetlands dry (e.g., Sivinski 2005a, pp. p. 13). Various emissions scenarios surface water, and groundwater. 3–4). suggest that average global temperatures Habitats that are sustained mainly by Surface diversions, primarily for are expected to increase by between 1.1 precipitation are the most likely to be irrigation, and groundwater pumping for °F and 7.2 °F (0.6 °C and 4.0 °C) by the affected in a drying climate. domestic and commercial uses also end of the 21st century, with the Alternatively, localities that are occurs at the Blue Spring locality greatest warming expected over land supplied primarily by groundwater will (NMDGF 2007, p. 22; Lusk 2008). Flow (IPCC 2007a, p. 13). Warming in western likely have the greatest resistance to in the Black River is sustained by mountains is projected to cause climate change due to water stored in springs, including Rattlesnake and Blue decreased snowpack, more winter aquifers (e.g., see Poff et al. 2002, pp. Springs, and is generally perennial in flooding, and reduced summer flows, 18–19). However, based on projections the reaches around these springs exacerbating competition for over- made by the IPCC, we consider climate (NMDGF 2007, p. 15). Discharge at Blue allocated water resources (IPCC 2007b, change to be a potential exacerbating Spring has varied over the past 100 p. 14). The IPCC reports that it is very factor, worsening the impacts of other years: in 1907, it was recorded at 15.2 likely that hot extremes, heat waves, known threats. These threats include cfs (0.430 cms), with a minimum of and heavy precipitation and flooding habitat degradation from prolonged 14.65 cfs (0.415 cms) (Bjorklund and will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007b, periods of drought and increased Motts 1959, pp. 251, 263); from 1952 to p. 18). temperature, and the allocation of water 1956, discharge varied from 8.5 to 14 cfs Based on current understanding of for use by the human population and (0.24 to 0.40 cms), with a mean of 12 cfs climate change, air temperatures are agriculture as well as a number of (0.34 cms) (Bjorklund and Motts 1959, expected to rise and precipitation potential confounding effects. In p. 268); and from 2002 to 2006, the patterns are expected to change in areas summary, we do not have evidence mean was 11.75 cfs (0.333 cms), with a occupied by Cirsium wrightii. Because indicating that climate change is range from 6.8 to 23 cfs (0.19 to 0.65 C. wrightii occupies relatively small currently a factor affecting C. wrightii’s cms) (NMDGF 2007, p.15). Bjorklund areas of spring or seep habitat in an arid existence, because the information and Motts (1959, pp. 247, 263) first region plagued by drought and ongoing available on the subject is insufficiently reported that water levels within the aquifer withdrawals (e.g., in the Roswell specific to the species or the possible Black River Valley (including Blue Basin), it may be vulnerable to climatic current or future effects of climate Spring) decline during the late summer changes that could decrease the change on the sources of their water and during droughts, mostly from heavy availability of water to suitable habitat. supply. However, we consider climate groundwater pumping and lack of For example, the most severe drought change to be a potential exacerbating aquifer recharge. Based on flows recorded in New Mexico occurred factor and will continue to evaluate new recorded in recent years (2000–2006) at between 1950 and 1956. Based on the information on the subject as it becomes Blue Springs and in the Black River discharges reported in the Black River available. above the Carlsbad Irrigation District (fed by Blue Spring, the C. wrightii diversion, more surface water is locality, and other spring sources) from Introduced Plants appropriated than is available in the 1952 to 1956 (daily mean of 15.4 cfs Introduced plants increase the system (R. Turner, New Mexico Office (0.436 cms)) compared to recent potential for habitat loss due to wildfire of the State Engineer, pers. comm., April discharges (2002 to 2006, daily mean of and competition with Cirsium wrightii.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Phragmites australis has recently years (Forest Service 2010 and production is greater than in adjacent invaded half of the known C. wrightii references therein). Rarely is P. australis dry uplands (e.g., see Forest Service localities (BLNWR, Tularosa Creek, abundance decreased by fire, and 2003). Although no studies specifically Santa Rosa, and Karr Canyon), forming postfire recovery is typically rapid. As related to the effects of livestock grazing dense stands in areas and increasing such, prescribed fire likely will do little on C. wrightii have been conducted fuel load and threat of wildfire. to reduce the long-term threat of P. (NMRPTC 2009, p. 2), livestock will Standing dead canes of P. australis and australis to C. wrightii. likely eat C. wrightii when other green associated litter often constitute twice as In addition to increasing the potential forage is scarce, and when the seedlings much biomass as living shoots (Forest for wildfire, Phragmites australis can or rosettes are developing and abundant. Service 2010). The high productivity also quickly invade a site and take over The localities in the Sacramento and density of P. australis stands a wetland, crowding out native plants Mountains, Santa Rosa, Alamosa provide fuel loads that are often high. and changing hydrology (Plant Springs, and Blue Spring have the This abundant dead fuel carries fire Conservation Alliance 2005, p. 1). The potential to be subjected to trampling well, allowing stands to burn even when dense plant growth blocks sunlight to and herbivory (75 FR 30762; NMDGF the current year’s shoots are green other plants growing in the immediate 2000, p. 2, 2004, p. 7, 2005, p. 47; Corps (Forest Service 2010). area and occupies all available habitat, 2007, p. 25; Service 1994, p. 6, 2005c, As an example, on March 5, 2000, the turning many wetlands into dense p. 2). For example, about three quarters Sandhill fire burned 1,000 ac (405 ha) stands that support only P. australis of C. wrightii were grazed at one locality of the western portion of the BLNWR, (Plant Conservation Alliance 2005, p. 1). near Santa Rosa (Corps 2007, p. 25). including portions of Bitter Creek. The Two Cirsium wrightii localities have Additionally, much of the private wet fire burned through Dragonfly Spring, recently been either extirpated (an meadows and marsh habitats in the eliminating the vegetation shading the occurrence in Karr Canyon), or Santa Rosa area have been severely spring. Although Cirsium wrightii does significantly reduced in size (Tularosa degraded by livestock grazing for many not occur immediately within the Creek), following an expansion of P. years (Sivinski and Bleakly 2004). burned area, the changes to wetland australis (Sivinski 1996, p. 2, 2005a, Except for Blue Hole Cienaga, we are vegetation exemplify how its habitat p. 4; 2009a, p. 2). P. australis is a not aware of any fences enclosing these might respond following wildfire. The current threat and will likely be a localities that would limit impacts to pre-fire dominant vegetation of continuing threat for C. wrightii the species. In the Sacramento submerged aquatic plants and mixed localities through increased fire risk, Mountains, for example, springs and native grasses within the burned area competition, and changes in hydrology, marshes provide a majority of the has been replaced by the invasive especially when habitat is disturbed watering sites for both livestock and Phragmites australis (NMDGF 2005, through burning or drying. wildlife species, especially elk (75 FR p. 19–21). The P. australis present at 30762). These wet springs and marshes Ungulate Grazing BLNWR is likely of European origin are subject to trampling and hoof (Service 2006, p. 5). Prior to the Grazing likely impacts some localities damage, and receive especially heavy wildfire, small patches of P. australis of Cirsium wrightii, but does not appear use during drought periods, when occurred throughout Bitter Creek, to be a widespread threat to the species. neither water nor green forage are whereas post-fire, P. australis colonized It is estimated that livestock grazing has readily available elsewhere. Trampling the burned area to form a continuous damaged approximately 80 percent of could easily result in damage to dense stand (NMDGF 2005, pp. 19–21). stream and riparian ecosystems in the seedlings, rosettes, and flowering stalks, Stands of P. australis have also recently western United States (Belsky et al. thereby preventing reproduction by become a dominant plant in other C. 1999, p. 419). The damage occurs from affected plants. It is possible that elk wrightii localities (Sivinski 2005a, pp. increased sedimentation, decreased and livestock grazing within and 3–4; Sivinski and Bleakly 2004, p. 5). water quality, and trampling and adjacent to spring ecosystems could Controlled burns have been overgrazing of stream banks where alter or remove habitat or limit the implemented on BLNWR to burn grass, succulent forage exists (Armour et al. distribution of Cirsium wrightii; sedge, cattail, and nonnative vegetation 1994, p. 10; Belsky et al. 1999, p. 419; however, we found little information to (e.g., Salsola spp. (Russian thistle and Fleischner 1994, p. 631). Moreover, support this possibility. Still, we believe tumbleweed)), in an attempt to reduce many acres of marsh habitats at Santa the observations of livestock and elk the risk of large uncontrolled wildfires Rosa have also been plowed and herbivory and trampling that directly by removing excessive amounts of converted to Festuca pratensis (meadow affect C. vinaceum and its habitat likely Salsola spp. and P. australis (Service fescue) pasture for livestock grazing are also occurring in some of the C. 2006). This may temporarily reduce the (Service 2005, p. 10; Corps 2007, p. 25). wrightii localities; however, it is threat of wildfire in one area of BLNWR, In the semi-arid southwestern United unknown whether these are localized or but repeated prescribed burns are likely States, wet marshes and other habitat of widespread threats to the species. needed to continually suppress P. C. wrightii attract ungulates because of In summary, while livestock activities australis growth (Service 2006, pp. 4–5). the availability of water and high- do not appear to be a widespread threat No measures are being implemented quality forage (e.g., see Hendrickson and at the current time, localized impacts in the other localities to reduce P. Minckley 1984, p. 134). Similar to C. have been observed, and increased use australis. Moreover, temperatures from vinaceum, dry periods likely increase of wet springs and marshes during prescribed burns are rarely high enough the effects of livestock trampling and drought conditions constitutes a threat to be lethal to P. australis or to penetrate herbivory on C. wrightii when other in the foreseeable future. We will deeply into the wet or moist soils water and forage plants are not available continue to monitor livestock grazing common in their habitat (Forest Service (75 FR 30761, June 2, 2010). Grazing and trampling to determine whether C. 2010 and references therein). Prescribed may be more concentrated within wrightii is threatened. fire burns above-ground parts of P. habitats similar to those occupied by C. australis, but below-ground rhizomes wrightii during drought years, when Wetland Filling and Development usually survive and produce plants later livestock are prone to congregate in As described below, wetland filling in the growing season or in subsequent wetland habitats or where forage and development has impacted the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67933

Santa Rosa locality, but does not appear further modified by ongoing and future AGFD 2001, p. 2). This exotic weevil to be a threat to the species. A water withdrawal. Changes in water has recently been found in habitat substantial percentage of wetlands in tables throughout the range of C. occupied by C. wrightii, C. vinaceum, the Santa Rosa area have disappeared in wrightii have also resulted in and the exotic Carduus nutans at the the last 50 to 80 years (Metric diminished discharge from springs or Silver Springs locality (Sivinski 2007, Corporation et al. 2002, p. 5). Springs complete loss of surface water. p. 6; Gardner and Thompson 2008, p. 4). that fed suitable habitat for Helianthus Therefore, there has been a trend of It is not known where Trichosirocalus paradoxus and likely also contained diminishing habitat quantity and horridus came from or whether they Cirsium wrightii have been converted to excessive degradation of habitat quality were intentionally released (Gardner swimming pools and fishing ponds or for the species throughout its range, as 2010, p. 3); however, this exotic rosette drained and filled for sports fields in the a result of agriculture and urban weevil is also present in Carduus towns of Roswell and Santa Rosa, New development, diversion of springs, and nutans populations ranging from the Mexico (e.g., see Sivinski and Bleakly drought. Moreover, the presence of and northern extent of the Mescalero 2004, p. 1; Service 2005, p. 8). effects from Phragmites australis Apache reservation south to Agua Moreover, some springs and associated threatens C. wrightii localities through Chiquita canyon in the Sacramento wetlands where C. wrightii occurred increased fire risk, competition, and Mountains. have been drained and developed, and changes in hydrology. On the basis of Rhinocyllus conicus is not host the potential for further development the information presented above, we specific to Carduus species and has exists (Metric Corporation 2001; Metric find that Cirsium wrightii may be been found living on 22 of the North Corporation et al. 2002; Sivinski 2009a, threatened by the present or threatened American Cirsium species (Louda et al. p. 1; Sivinski and Bleakly 2004, p. 1; destruction, modification, or 2003). This weevil is available from Service 2008b, p. 42). curtailment of its habitat, both now and commercial suppliers and is easily Some of the Cirsium wrightii in the foreseeable future. gathered and transported from occurrences within the Santa Rosa established colonies. Breeding and egg locality continue to be impacted B. Overutilization for Commercial, placement by R. conicus begins in mid- through filling and development and Recreational, Scientific, or Educational June, peaks in early July, and continues regular mowing. C. wrightii occurs at the Purposes into August (Sivinski 2008, p. 5). Newly Blue Hole fish hatchery ponds that are We do not have any evidence of risks hatched larvae bury into the flower head owned by the City of Santa Rosa to Cirsium wrightii from overutilization and feed on the tissue. Most R. conicus (Sivinski 1996, p. 4). The City of Santa for commercial, recreational, scientific, at the Silver Springs locality emerge Rosa plans to dredge and fill these or educational purposes, and we have from the flower heads by early ponds for municipal use in the no reason to believe this factor will September; however, some immature foreseeable future (Service 2008b, p. 42), become a threat to the species in the larvae were still present in the flower which would undoubtedly impact the future. Therefore, we find heads of C. vinaceum in September species. A similar action occurred in overutilization for commercial, (Sivinski 2008, p. 5). Flower heads of C. 2001 when the C. wrightii population at recreational, scientific, or educational wrightii grow during late July to early Power Dam Municipal Park in Santa purposes does not threaten C. wrightii August, which overlaps with developing Rosa was extirpated when the reservoir now or in the foreseeable future. and feeding larvae of R. conicus. The was drained (Sivinski 2005a, p. 3; establishment of R. conicus beyond the 2009a, p. 1). Numerous wetlands in C. Disease or Predation Silver Springs locality will likely occur Santa Rosa were also lost many years Disease in the near future because stands of C. ago to an impoundment, in which 17 nutans are common in many of the ponds were created and used for a fish Cirsium wrightii is not known to be drainages throughout the Sacramento hatchery. The fish hatchery has since affected or threatened by any disease. Mountains (Gardner and Thompson been abandoned, and all but four of the Therefore, we find that disease does not 2008, p. 4), and we are concerned that ponds filled. The remaining adjacent threaten C. wrightii now or in the it may spread to C. wrightii populations. 116 ac (47 ha) of the Blue Hole Cienaga foreseeable future. For these reasons, we intend to monitor were purchased by the State of New Insect Predation localities in the Sacramento Mountains Mexico to protect habitat that includes to determine whether C. wrightii could the Federally threatened Helianthus Native and nonnative insect be a potential host and possibly paradoxus, C. wrightii, and the State- populations have the potential to impact threatened by R. conicus infestations. endangered Spiranthes the condition, reproduction, and Trichosirocalus horridus, feeds on magnicamporum (Great Plains lady’s distribution of Cirsium wrightii. Carduus nutans during the rosette stage, tresses) (New Mexico State Forestry Observed seed predators on the similar killing first-year rosettes and stopping 2008, p. 1). Although we are not aware C. vinaceum in the Sacramento the growth of older plants. This weevil of any other specific residential or Mountains include Paracantha gentilis, is available from commercial suppliers commercial development plans at this a native specialist gall fly; Platyptilia or can be gathered and transported from or other localities, actions that drain or carduidactyla, the native artichoke established colonies (Flanders et al. fill wetlands or other habitat occupied plume moth; Euphoria inda, a native 2001, p. 4; Jennings et al. 2010, pp. 4– by the species would impact C. wrightii. generalist bumble flower beetle; 5). Moreover, T. horridus is capable of Rhinocyllus conicus, an introduced spreading at least a mile (1.61 km) per Summary of Factor A seed-head weevil; and Trichosirocalus year on their own (Flanders et al. 2001, In summary, we found that past and horridus, an introduced rosette weevil p. 4). Adults emerge from summer present alteration of rare desert springs, (Sivinski 2008, pp. 1–11; Gardner 2010, resting places in the fall. They lay eggs seeps, and wetland habitats that support pp. 2–3). There have been intentional in the midrib of thistle leaves, and Cirsium wrightii is a significant threat. releases of Rhinocyllus conicus to complete egg-laying in the spring. After The four largest localities of C. wrightii control Carduus nutans (musk thistle) 10 to 12 days, the eggs hatch, and the at Blue Spring, BLNWR, Santa Rosa, and (Sivinski 1994, p. 2; 2007, p. 6; young weevils tunnel from the midrib Alamosa Creek have the potential to be NMRPTC 2009, p. 2; Bridge 2001, p. 1; into the rosette, feeding and causing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

damage or possibly killing the crown meeting the Corps criteria of having currently protected from the tissue. The new adults emerge in May hydric (wet) soils, hydrology (either a construction and maintenance of and June, feed briefly, and pass the defined minimum duration of irrigation facilities and functionally summer in a period of inactivity continuous inundation or saturation of related structures, which are exempt (Flanders et al. 2001, p. 3). We are soil during the growing season), and a from Section 404 of the CWA, and concerned about potential effects to C. plant community that is predominantly therefore, do not receive any general wrightii and intend to monitor C. hydrophytic vegetation (plants protections that may have resulted from wrightii localities to determine if this specifically adapted for growing in a status determination and permitting introduced rosette weevil threatens the wetland environment). Much of the process by the Corps (e.g., see Corps species. habitat occupied by Cirsium wrightii 2007). Finally, we are not aware of any Rhinocyllus conicus and a native qualifies as wetlands. Corps permits that have been issued for predator, the stem borer weevil (Lixus Any discharge of dredged or fill the habitat where this species occurs or pervestitus), caused a widespread material into waters of the United historically occurred, indicating that premature stem death to the flower States, including wetlands, requires a there is little protection provided to C. heads of the Silver Springs population permit from the Corps. These include wrightii through the CWA. of the endangered C. vinaceum, which individual permits, which would be Additionally, recent court cases limit co-occurs with C. wrightii (Sivinski issued following a review of an the Corps’ ability to utilize the CWA to 2007, pp. 8–12). These 2 insects individual application, and general regulate the discharge of fill or dredged collectively damaged up to 99 percent of permits that authorize a category or material into the aquatic environment C. vinaceum within the Silver Springs categories of activities in a specific within the current range of Cirsium locality, resulting in nearly complete geographical location or nationwide (33 wrightii (Solid Waste Agency of die-off of flowering stems (Sivinski CFR parts 320–330). General and special Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army 2008, p. 9, 2009b). Thus far, L. permit conditions may vary among the Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) pervestitus has not been found on C. various general permits. Although the (SWANCC)). Additionally, there may be vinaceum outside of the Silver Springs use of any individual or general permit instances where wet marshes occupied population, and little is known about requires compliance with the Act when by C. wrightii lack sufficient connection this insect species in New Mexico there are threatened or endangered to waters of the United States for the (Sivinski 2008, pp. 10–11). species present, only three (Santa Rosa, Corps to assert jurisdiction under the Nevertheless, the reproductive output of BLNWR, and Silver Springs) of the eight authority of the CWA. For example, the the population of C. vinaceum at Silver localities co-occur with either Corps frequently cites the SWANCC Springs was greatly reduced by these Helianthus paradoxus or Cirsium decision as their reason for not taking insects. Similarly, it is unknown if these vinaceum, which are both listed under jurisdiction over water bodies that do weevils feed on C. wrightii or have the the Act. Even at these three localities, not meet the definition of waters of the same level of impact as that of C. we are not aware of any protections that United States. For these reasons, we vinaceum. have been provided by the CWA. conclude that regulation of wetland While the CWA provides a means for filling by the Corps under the CWA is Summary of Factor C the Corps to regulate the discharge of inadequate to protect C. wrightii from In summary, it is not known at this dredged or fill material into waters and further decline. wetlands of the United States, it does time whether insect predators would State of New Mexico decrease seed production and increase not always provide adequate protection the threat to the existence of C. wrightii of wetlands. Private and State The State of New Mexico lists Cirsium populations. The potential for insect landowners of wetlands are often wrightii as endangered under the New predators to become a threat to C. unaware of this permitting requirement, Mexico Endangered Plant Species Act wrightii in the future needs to be and may fill or drain their lands without (9–10–10 NMSA). As such, C. wrightii is monitored and evaluated. Therefore, we requesting determination of wetland protected from unauthorized collection, intend to monitor populations, status or a permit (Service 2005, p. 22). transport, or sale. This law prohibits the especially in the Sacramento For example, in 2003, the New Mexico taking, possession, transportation and Mountains, for impact due to insect Department of Transportation violated exportation, selling or offering for sale predation. the CWA in the right-of-way of Highway of any listed plant species. Listed 91 in Santa Rosa within Helianthus species can be collected only under D. The Inadequacy of Existing paradoxus habitat (Service 2008c, p. 12; permit from the State of New Mexico for Regulatory Mechanisms New Mexico Department of scientific studies and impact mitigation. One primary cause of decline of Transportation 2003, pp. 1–2). In 2001, However, this law does not provide any Cirsium wrightii is the loss, degradation, the New Mexico Department of protection for C. wrightii habitat. and fragmentation of habitat due to Transportation also mowed Helianthus Moreover, there are no statutory human activities. Federal and State laws paradoxus in the wetland within the requirements under the jurisdiction of have been insufficient to prevent past right-of-way of La Pradira Avenue (now the State of New Mexico that serve as an and ongoing losses of the limited habitat Blue Hole Road) and proposed to effective regulatory mechanism for of the species, and are unlikely to destroy at least 20 C. wrightii plants in reducing or eliminating the threats (see prevent further declines. conjunction with reconstruction of the Factors A and C above) that may road (Metric Corporation 2001, pp. 12, adversely affect C. wrightii or its habitat. Clean Water Act 21). Many applicants are required to Nor are there any requirements under Pursuant to section 404 of the Clean provide compensation for wetlands the New Mexico State statutes to Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), the losses (i.e., no net loss), and many develop a recovery plan that will restore U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) smaller impact projects remain largely and protect existing habitat for the regulates the discharge of dredged or fill unmitigated, unless specifically species. Therefore, the species does not material into all waters of the United required by other environmental laws have a recovery plan, conservation plan, States, including wetlands. In general, such as the Act. Specifically, we found or conservation agreement. For these the term ‘‘wetlands’’ refers to areas that C. wrightii localities are not reasons, we find that existing New

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67935

Mexico State regulatory mechanisms are Similarly, the species lacks adequate Transportation injured or killed C. currently inadequate to protect C. regulatory protection from its various wrightii, as well as the Federally wrightii. As noted, these designations designations—a Forest Service sensitive threatened species C. vinaceum and provide no regulatory protection for the species, or endangered status by the Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta habitat or the species to prevent further State of New Mexico, because these (Sacramento prickly poppy) (Tonne decline. designations only serve to notify the 2007). Additionally, in June 2010, herbicide was applied to the highway 91 Other Federal Protections public of the species’ status and do not require conservation or management right-of-way in Santa Rosa, likely killing Under the Federal Land Policy and actions. We are not aware of any other or injuring C. wrightii and Helianthus Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. existing regulatory mechanisms. paradoxus (Service 2010c, p. 1). 1701 et seq.) and the National Forest Cirsium wrightii is currently threatened The indirect effects of herbicide Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. by the inadequacy of existing regulatory application also have the potential to 1600 et seq.), the Forest Service is mechanisms. This will continue into the affect the species. For example, in 2002, directed to prepare programmatic-level foreseeable future. shortly after application in upland management plans to guide long-term areas, heavy rains washed the common resource management decisions. Under E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors herbicide tebuthiuron into Threemile this direction, Cirsium wrightii is on the Affecting the Species’ Continued Draw, a tributary to the Black River, in Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Existence the vicinity of the Blue Spring locality List (Forest Service 2008a). The Forest Hybridization (NMDGF 2007, p. 24). Farmers Service policy (FSM 2670.3) states that downstream in Malaga reported damage biological evaluations must be Cirsium wrightii is capable of to irrigated crops from this herbicide. It completed for sensitive species and crossbreeding with other native Cirsium is unknown whether this affected C. signed by a journey-level biologist or species to produce hybrid offspring wrightii, but demonstrates that indirect botanist. The Lincoln National Forest (Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 1719; effects from herbicide application on will continue developing biological NMRPTC 2009, p. 2; Worthington 2002). upland areas may also impact riparian evaluation reports and conducting For example, Cirsium species observed vegetation. After reviewing this analyses under the National at Rattlesnake Springs (Carlsbad information, we find that effects from Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Caverns National Park), New Mexico, herbicide use have the potential to 4321 et seq.) for each project that will show characteristics that are impact C. wrightii, but are currently not affect Cirsium wrightii or its habitat. intermediate between C. wrightii and C. known to be impacting most localities. Nevertheless, only 2 of the 8 general texanum (NMRPTC 2009, p. 2). This Oil and Gas Development and Mining localities occur on Forest Service lands, Cirsium population blooms in May and these are extremely small, rather than in August through October, Oil and gas development occurs in composed of less than 70 plants total. as is typical of C. wrightii. C. wrightii some areas occupied by Cirsium Therefore, even if protections were sometimes occurs with the threatened C. wrightii. Since 2001, there has been a afforded to the species due to its Forest vinaceum in the Sacramento Mountains, significant expansion of oil and gas Service sensitive-species status, the where a few hybrids between these rare operations in Eddy County, especially number of localities are insufficient to taxa have been observed; however, within the Black River watershed and, conserve C. wrightii rangewide. hybrid plants are uncommon (Service in particular, around Blue Spring 2008a, p. 13; Worthington 2002). While (NMDGF 2007, pp. 18–19; NMDGF Incidental Protections Resulting From hybridization between C. wrightii and 2005, p. 35). Several low-water Association With Other Listed Species other Cirsium species has been crossings span the Black River. Transit BLNWR was established in 1937 as observed, it is uncommon, and does not of heavy trucks carrying petroleum- wintering and breeding grounds for appear to be a threat to C. wrightii. derived products could result in surface water contamination from leakage or migratory birds. Cirsium wrightii was Herbicide Use not known to occur on the refuge until accidents (NMDGF 2007a, p. 20). 1998 (Service 1998). Consequently, Cirsium wrightii is likely eliminated Similarly, oil and gas development in management was directed primarily at from its habitat by individuals that this area of southeastern New Mexico creating dikes so that ponds could be believe it is a noxious weed, due to its has the potential to impact groundwater created and their water levels controlled large and conspicuous size (Sivinski (Goodbar 2007, pp. 213–214). As an for the benefit of waterfowl. This likely 1996, p. 10). At least one locality in the example, there is a history of oil and gas was beneficial to C. wrightii by Sacramento Mountains is currently industry operations on and adjacent to unknowingly creating more habitat. susceptible to herbicide application or BLNWR, which have resulted in the Although current management of mowing because it is found in spillage of oil and brine onto the refuge BLNWR recognizes and includes association with an introduced weed (Service 2005a; NMDGF 2002, pp. 3–4). Federally listed species in its (Arctium minus (burdock)) within the Development of oil and gas wells is maintenance and operations, because C. highway right-of-way that is frequently anticipated to continue into the wrightii is not a Federally threatened or treated (Sivinski 1996, p. 6). Another foreseeable future in the proximity of C. endangered species, we are aware of locality of C. wrightii in the Sacramento wrightii habitat (e.g., see Service 2005a, only one project that has specifically Mountains is surrounded by dense p. 46306). Oil drilling also occurs considered and incorporated measures stands of Centaurea melitensis (Malta throughout the Roswell Basin and Eddy to limit impacts on the species or star-thistle) that could also potentially County, New Mexico (NMDGF 2002, pp. specifically analyzed whether actions be treated with herbicides (Sivinski 2–4, 2005a, pp. 25, 78; Service 2005a, p. proposed by the refuge would cause any 1996, p. 6). If herbicides are applied to 46315; Goodbar 2007). This activity and adverse effects (Service 2010a, p. 7). other localities, C. wrightii could be associated actions can threaten the impacted. For example, in June 2007, on water quality of the aquifer on which Summary of Factor D Federal Highway 82 in Otero County, a this species depends. Petroleum In summary, Cirsium wrightii receives misapplication of herbicide by the State contamination has also been reported inadequate protection from the CWA. of New Mexico Department of from the Black River and areas adjacent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67936 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

to BLNWR (NMDGF 2005a, pp. 18–19; because C. wrightii grows in saturated weed covers an alkaline spring seep Richard 1989). substrates that are not suitable habitat similar to some of the C. wrightii Additionally, a permit was recently for these exotic trees. Nevertheless, they habitats in the Sacramento Mountains issued by the New Mexico Energy, do invade wetlands when the area dries (Sivinski 2006b, p. 15). If it also spreads Minerals and Natural Resources (e.g., due to severe drought) and, once to any of the eight localities, this Department for subsurface drilling and they become established, can survive in aggressive wetland weed could impact exploration of the mineral bertrandite wet habitats when the moisture returns C. wrightii habitat. on Sullivan Ranch (New Mexico Mining (Sivinski 2007, p. 2). Still, Tamarix ssp. We currently have no information that and Minerals Division 2010), near the C. may impact spring habitats primarily these introduced plants are immediate wrightii locality at Alamosa Springs, through the amount of water it threats to Cirsium wrightii. However, Socorro County, New Mexico, which consumes, and from the chemical Carduus nutans may be serving as a has the potential to affect the species composition of the leaves it drops on vector for Rhinocyllus conicus, the (Sivinski 2009c; NMDGF 2000). the ground and into the springs. exotic seed head weevil, discussed However, no specific assessment of Tamarix ssp. leaves add salt to the soil under Factor C. Based on possible potential water quality threats has been through its leaf litter (the leaves contain interactions with water availability and conducted, and it is unknown whether salt glands) (Di Tomaso 1998). Because climate change, these exotic plants a decrease in water quality from oil and Tamarix ssp. grow along the edge of could potentially threaten C. wrightii in gas development or contamination from water courses, it is possible that this the future; however, we do not believe exploration of minerals would affect the could affect the soil chemistry of areas they pose a current threat. growth or reproduction of C. wrightii to inhabited by C. wrightii. However, no Summary of Factor E such an extent as to constitute a research has been conducted widespread threat to the species. specifically on the effect of Tamarix ssp. In summary for Factor E, we do not Nevertheless, oil and other or E. angustifolia on C. wrightii. currently consider hybridization, contaminants from development and Salsola spp. (Russian thistle; herbicide use, oil and gas development drilling activities throughout these areas tumbleweed) is another introduced and mining as threats to the species; could enter the aquifer supplying the plant species that has the potential to however, these may become threats in springs and seeps inhabited by C. degrade spring ecosystems. Salsola spp. the future. Similarly, except for wrightii when the limestone layers are is not a riparian species like Tamarix Phragmites australis, we do not pierced by drilling activities. An spp. (salt cedar) or Phragmites australis; consider invasive plants as a significant accidental oil spill or groundwater however, the plant can accumulate in threat to the species now; however, they contamination has the potential to spring channels following wind storms. could potentially threaten Cirsium pollute water sources that support C. In 2005, BLNWR conducted an wrightii in the foreseeable future. We do wrightii and potentially threaten the emergency Intra-Service consultation consider Phragmites australis to be a species in the foreseeable future, under section 7 of the Act for the threat to C. wrightii localities as a result although it is unclear whether these removal of Salsola spp. and Kochia of the increased fire risk, competition, impacts would be localized or scoparia (tumbleweed) from a spring and changes in hydrology its presence widespread threats to the species. ditch (Service 2005b). Wind had blown causes. these plants into the channel to a depth Invasive Plants Finding of 3 to 4 ft (0.9 to 1.2 m), completely The potential impact of Phragmites shading the water and overloading the We have carefully assessed the best australis on Cirsium wrightii habitat has small channel with organic material. scientific and commercial information been discussed in threat factor A, above. Noel (1954, p. 124) also reported Salsola available regarding the past, present, The following additional invasive spp. accumulating in a spring near and future threats to Cirsium wrightii. terrestrial plant species have the Roswell. We are not aware of this Section 3(6) of the Act defines an potential to affect C. wrightii at most situation occurring at other localities, endangered species as ‘‘any species localities: Lythrum salicaria (purple but we have not regularly monitored all which is in danger of extinction loosestrife), Elaeagnus angustifolia Cirsium wrightii localities for Salsola throughout all or a significant portion of (Russian olive), Tamarix ssp., Salsola spp. occurrences. Therefore, it is its range,’’ and section 3(20) defines a spp., Dipsacus fullonum (teasel), unknown whether this is a threat to the threatened species as ‘‘any species Carduus nutans, Conium maculatum species. Nevertheless, control of Salsola which is likely to become an (poison hemlock), Centaurea melitensis, spp. is an ongoing management activity endangered species within the Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle), and at BLNWR, and may occur within areas foreseeable future throughout all or a Cirsium vulgare (bull thistle). These occupied by C. wrightii. significant portion of its range.’’ Under plants present unique challenges and The eight localities of Cirsium wrightii the Act and our implementing potential threats to the habitat of C. generally lack large, aggressive, exotic regulations, a species may warrant wrightii. However, most of the exotic wetland weeds, such as Lythrum listing if it is endangered or threatened plants cannot tolerate the continuously salicaria (purple loosestrife), which throughout all or a significant portion of saturated substrates that are typical in C. could dominate C. wrightii habitat. its range. The threats to C. wrightii occur wrightii habitats. Lythrum salicaria is a Eurasian species throughout its range and generally are For example, Carduus nutans infests that has been modifying wetlands and not restricted to any particular much of the riparian habitat on Lincoln outcompeting native species in North significant portion of that range. National Forest (Gardner and Thompson America for many decades (Natural Accordingly, our assessment and 2008, pp. 1, 4), but does not appear to Resources Conservation Service 2000, proposed determination applies to the impact C. wrightii through competition. pp. 1–2). Lythrum salicaria appeared in species throughout its entire range. Sivinski (1996, p. 6) reports that New Mexico in the 1990s and is extant Cirsium wrightii faces threats from Tamarix spp. and E. angustifolia are in the Mimbres Mountains, Grant present or threatened destruction, becoming dominant in many riparian County and Sandia Mountains, modification, and curtailment of its and wetland areas, but that these Bernalillo County. The Sandia habitat, primarily from natural and species likely do not threaten C. wrightii Mountains occurrence of this invasive human-caused modifications of its

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67937

habitat due to ground and surface water Under the Service’s guidelines, the Work on a proposed listing depletion, drought, and invasion of magnitude of threat is the first criterion determination for Cirsium wrightii is Phragmites australis (Factor A), and we look at when establishing a listing precluded by work on higher priority from the inadequacy of existing priority. The guidance indicates that listing actions with absolute statutory, regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). species with the highest magnitude of court-ordered, or court-approved Cirsium wrightii occupies relatively threat are those species facing the deadlines and final listing small areas of seeps, springs, and greatest threats to their continued determinations for those species that wetland habitat in an arid region existence. These species receive the were proposed for listing with funds plagued by drought and ongoing and highest listing priority. We consider the from previous fiscal years. This work future water withdrawals. The species’ threats that Cirsium wrightii faces to be includes all the actions listed in the highly specific requirements of moderate in magnitude because the tables below under expeditious saturated soils with surface or major threats (habitat loss and progress. subsurface water flow make it degradation due to alteration of the Preclusion and Expeditious Progress particularly vulnerable to these threats hydrology of its rare wetland habitat), to an extent that the species may while serious and occurring rangewide, Preclusion is a function of the listing become endangered within the do not collectively rise to the level of priority of a species in relation to the foreseeable future, depending primarily high magnitude, relative to other resources that are available and on how much modification or drying of species. The species occurs only in competing demands for those resources. its limited amount of habitat may occur. areas that are water-saturated and Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), We find that Cirsium wrightii is likely populations have a high potential for multiple factors dictate whether it will to become endangered throughout all or extirpation when habitat dries due to be possible to undertake work on a a significant portion of its range within ground and surface water depletion, proposed listing regulation or whether the foreseeable future based on the draining of wetlands, or drought. promulgation of such a proposal is warranted but precluded by higher- threats described above. Therefore, on Under our LPN guidelines, the second the basis of the best available scientific priority listing actions. criterion we consider in assigning a The resources available for listing and commercial information, we find listing priority is the immediacy of that Cirsium wrightii meets the actions are determined through the threats. This criterion is intended to annual Congressional appropriations definition of endangered or threatened ensure that the species facing actual, in accordance with sections 3(6) and process. The appropriation for the identifiable threats are given priority Listing Program is available to support 4(a)(1) of the Act and listing is over those for which threats are only warranted. While we conclude that work involving the following listing potential or that are intrinsically actions: Proposed and final listing rules; listing C. wrightii is warranted, an vulnerable but are not known to be immediate proposal to list this species 90-day and 12-month findings on presently facing such threats. We is precluded by other higher priority petitions to add species to the Lists of consider all of the threats to be listings, which we address below. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife imminent because we have factual and Plants (Lists) or to change the status Listing Priority Number information that the threats are of a species from threatened to The Service adopted guidelines on identifiable and that the species is endangered; annual determinations on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to currently facing them in many portions prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ petition establish a rational system for utilizing of its range. Long-term drought, in findings as required under section available resources for the highest combination with ground and surface 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat priority species when adding species to water withdrawal, pose a current and petition findings; proposed and final the Lists of Endangered or Threatened future threat to C. wrightii and its rules designating critical habitat; and Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying habitat. These actual, identifiable litigation-related, administrative, and species listed as threatened to threats are covered in greater detail in program-management functions endangered status. These guidelines, Factors A and D of this finding. All of (including preparing and allocating titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened the threats are ongoing and therefore budgets, responding to Congressional Species Listing and Recovery Priority imminent. In addition to their current and public inquiries, and conducting Guidelines’’ address the immediacy and existence, we expect these threats to public outreach regarding listing and magnitude of threats, and the level of continue and likely intensify in the critical habitat). The work involved in taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning foreseeable future. preparing various listing documents can priority in descending order to The third criterion in our Listing be extensive and may include, but is not monotypic genera (genus with one Priority Number guidance is intended to limited to: Gathering and assessing the species), full species, and subspecies (or devote resources to those species best scientific and commercial data equivalently, distinct population representing highly distinctive or available and conducting analyses used segments of vertebrates). isolated gene pools as reflected by as the basis for our decisions; writing As a result of our analysis of the best taxonomy. Cirsium wrightii is a valid and publishing documents; and available scientific and commercial taxon at the species level and, therefore, obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating information, we have assigned Cirsium receives a higher priority than public comments and peer review wrightii a Listing Priority Number (LPN) subspecies, but a lower priority than comments on proposed rules and of 8, based on our finding that the species in a monotypic genus. incorporating relevant information into species faces threats that are of Therefore, we assigned Cirsium wrightii final rules. The number of listing moderate magnitude and are imminent. an LPN of 8. actions that we can undertake in a given These threats include the present or We will continue to monitor the year also is influenced by the threatened destruction, modification or threats to Cirsium wrightii and the complexity of those listing actions; that curtailment of its habitat; predation; and species’ status on an annual basis, and is, more complex actions generally are the inadequacy of existing regulatory should the magnitude or the imminence more costly. The median cost for mechanisms. These threats are ongoing of the threats change, we will re-visit preparing and publishing a 90-day and therefore considered imminent. our assessment of the LPN. finding is $39,276; for a 12-month

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule Congress identified the availability of management functions; and high- with critical habitat, $345,000; and for resources as the only basis for deferring priority listing actions for some of our a final listing rule with critical habitat, the initiation of a rulemaking that is candidate species. In 2009, the the median cost is $305,000. warranted. The Conference Report responsibility for listing foreign species We cannot spend more than is accompanying Public Law 97–304, under the Act was transferred from the appropriated for the Listing Program which established the current statutory Division of Scientific Authority, without violating the Anti-Deficiency deadlines and the warranted-but- International Affairs Program, to the Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In precluded finding, states that the Endangered Species Program. Starting addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal amendments were ‘‘not intended to in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is year since then, Congress has placed a allow the Secretary to delay being used to work on the actions statutory cap on funds which may be commencing the rulemaking process for described above as they apply to listing expended for the Listing Program, equal any reason other than that the existence actions for foreign species. This has the to the amount expressly appropriated of pending or imminent proposals to list potential to further reduce funding for that purpose in that fiscal year. This species subject to a greater degree of available for domestic listing actions. cap was designed to prevent funds threat would make allocation of Although there are currently no foreign appropriated for other functions under resources to such a petition [that is, for species issues included in our high- the Act (for example, recovery funds for a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ priority listing actions at this time, removing species from the Lists), or for Although that statement appeared to many actions have statutory or court- other Service programs, from being used refer specifically to the ‘‘to the approved settlement deadlines, thus for Listing Program actions (see House maximum extent practicable’’ limitation increasing their priority. The allocations Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st on the 90-day deadline for making a for each specific listing action are Session, July 1, 1997). ‘‘substantial information ’’ finding, that identified in the Service’s FY 2010 Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget finding is made at the point when the Allocation Table (part of our has included a critical habitat subcap to Service is deciding whether or not to administrative record). ensure that some funds are available for commence a status review that will Based on our September 21, 1983, other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The determine the degree of threats facing guidance for assigning an LPN for each critical habitat designation subcap will the species, and therefore the analysis candidate species (48 FR 43098), we ensure that some funding is available to underlying the statement is more have a significant number of species address other listing activities’’ (House relevant to the use of the warranted-but- with an LPN of 2. Using this guidance, Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st precluded finding, which is made when we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and the Service has already determined the to 12, depending on the magnitude of each year until FY 2006, the Service has degree of threats facing the species and threats (high vs. moderate to low), had to use virtually the entire critical is deciding whether or not to commence immediacy of threats (imminent or habitat subcap to address court- a rulemaking. nonimminent), and taxonomic status of mandated designations of critical In FY 2010, expeditious progress is the species (in order of priority: habitat, and consequently none of the that amount of work that can be monotypic genus (a species that is the critical habitat subcap funds have been achieved with $10,471,000, which is the sole member of a genus); species; or part available for other listing activities. In amount of money that Congress of a species (subspecies, distinct FY 2007, we were able to use some of appropriated for the Listing Program population segment, or significant the critical habitat subcap funds to fund (that is, the portion of the Listing portion of the range)). The lower the proposed listing determinations for Program funding not related to critical listing priority number, the higher the high-priority candidate species. In FY habitat designations for species that are listing priority (that is, a species with an 2009, while we were unable to use any already listed). However these funds are LPN of 1 would have the highest listing of the critical habitat subcap funds to not enough to fully fund all our court- priority). Because of the large number of fund proposed listing determinations, ordered and statutory listing actions in high-priority species, we have further we did use some of this money to fund FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of ranked the candidate species with an the critical habitat portion of some our critical habitat subcap funds in LPN of 2 by using the following proposed listing determinations so that order to work on all of our required extinction-risk type criteria: the proposed listing determination and petition findings and listing International Union for the proposed critical habitat designation determinations. This brings the total Conservation of Nature and Natural could be combined into one rule, amount of funds we have for listing Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, thereby being more efficient in our actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our Heritage rank (provided by work. In FY 2010, we are using some of process is to make our determinations of NatureServe), Heritage threat rank the critical habitat subcap funds to fund preclusion on a nationwide basis to (provided by NatureServe), and species actions with statutory deadlines. ensure that the species most in need of currently with fewer than 50 Thus, through the listing cap, the listing will be addressed first and also individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. critical habitat subcap, and the amount because we allocate our listing budget Those species with the highest IUCN of funds needed to address court- on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 rank (critically endangered), the highest mandated critical habitat designations, is being used to fund work in the Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage Congress and the courts have in effect following categories: compliance with threat rank (substantial, imminent determined the amount of money court orders and court-approved threats), and currently with fewer than available for other listing activities. settlement agreements requiring that 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, petition findings or listing populations, originally comprised a other than those needed to address determinations be completed by a group of approximately 40 candidate court-mandated critical habitat for specific date; section 4 (of the Act) species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate already-listed species, set the limits on listing actions with absolute statutory species have had the highest priority to our determinations of preclusion and deadlines; essential litigation-related, receive funding to work on a proposed expeditious progress. administrative, and listing program- listing determination. As we work on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67939

proposed and final listing rules for those endangered are lower priority, since as for listing and the competing demands 40 candidates, we apply the ranking listed species, they are already afforded for those funds. (Although we do not criteria to the next group of candidates the protection of the Act and discuss it in detail here, we are also with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the implementing regulations. However, for making expeditious progress in next set of highest priority candidate efficiency reasons, we may choose to removing species from the list under the species. work on a proposed rule to reclassify a Recovery program in light of the To be more efficient in our listing species to endangered if we can resource available for delisting, which is process, as we work on proposed rules combine this with work that is subject funded by a separate line item in the for the highest priority species in the to a court-determined deadline. budget of the Endangered Species next several years, we are preparing As explained above, a determination Program. During FY 2010, we have multi-species proposals when that listing is warranted but precluded appropriate, and these may include must also demonstrate that expeditious completed two proposed delisting rules species with lower priority if they progress is being made to add and and two final delisting rules.) Given the overlap geographically or have the same remove qualified species to and from limited resources available for listing, threats as a species with an LPN of 2. the Lists of Endangered and Threatened we find that we made expeditious In addition, available staff resources are Wildlife and Plants. As with our progress in FY 2010 in the Listing also a factor in determining high- ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of Program. This progress included priority species provided with funding. whether progress in adding qualified preparing and publishing the following Finally, proposed rules for species to the Lists has been expeditious determinations: reclassification of threatened species to is a function of the resources available

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

10/08/2009 ...... Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Final Listing Threatened ...... 74 FR 52013–52064 Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species Throughout Its Range. 10/27/2009 ...... 90-day Finding on a Petition to List the Amer- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not sub- 74 FR 55177–55180 ican Dipper in the Black Hills of South Da- stantial. kota as Threatened or Endangered. 10/28/2009 ...... Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus Notice of Intent To Conduct Status Review for 74 FR 55524–55525 arcticus) in the Upper Missouri River Sys- Listing Decision. tem. 11/03/2009 ...... Listing the British Columbia Distinct Popu- Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 74 FR 56757–56770 lation Segment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act. 11/03/2009 ...... Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Proposed Listing Threatened ...... 74 FR 56770–56791 Threatened Throughout Its Range with Special Rule. 11/23/2009 ...... Status Review of Gunnison Sage-grouse Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for 74 FR 61100–61102 (Centrocercus minimus). Listing Decision. 12/03/2009 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 74 FR 63343–63366 Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or ranted. Endangered. 12/03/2009 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 63337–63343 Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened or Endan- gered. 12/15/2009 ...... 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Spe- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 66260–66271 cies of Mussels From Texas as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat. 12/16/2009 ...... Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not sub- 74 FR 66865–66905 475 Species in the Southwestern United stantial and Substantial. States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat. 12/17/2009 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition To Change Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 74 FR 66937–66950 the Final Listing of the Distinct Population but precluded. Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include New Mexico. 1/05/2010 ...... Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bo- Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 605–649 livia as Endangered Throughout Their Range. 1/05/2010 ...... Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 286–310 Throughout Their Range. 1/05/2010 ...... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List Cook’s Proposed rule, withdrawal ...... 75 FR 310–316 Petrel. 1/05/2010 ...... Final Rule To List the Galapagos Petrel and Final Listing Threatened ...... 75 FR 235–250 Heinroth’s Shearwater as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges. 1/20/2010 ...... Initiation of Status Review for Agave Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review for 75 FR 3190–3191 eggersiana and Solanum conocarpum. Listing.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67940 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

2/09/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 6437–6471 American Pika as Threatened or Endan- ranted. gered. 2/25/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 8601–8621 Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald ranted. Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Dis- tinct Population Segment. 2/25/2010 ...... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List ...... 75 FR 8621–8644 Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened. 3/18/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Berry Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 13068–13071 Cave Salamander as Endangered. 3/23/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not sub- 75 FR 13717–13720 Southern Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria stantial. jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened. 3/23/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 13720–13726 Striped Newt as Threatened. 3/23/2010 ...... 12-Month Findings for Petitions To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 13910–14014 Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus but precluded. urophasianus) as Threatened or Endan- gered. 3/31/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 16050–16065 Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake (Chionactis but precluded. occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or En- dangered with Critical Habitat. 4/5/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 17062–17070 Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered. 4/6/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 17352–17363 Mountain Whitefish in the Big Lost River, ranted. Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened. 4/6/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List a Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not sub- 75 FR 17363–17367 Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) and a Mayfly stantial. (Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endan- gered with Critical Habitat. 4/7/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Reclassify Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 17667–17680 the Delta Smelt From Threatened to En- but precluded. dangered Throughout Its Range. 4/13/2010 ...... Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 18959–19165 Species on Kauai and Designation of Crit- ical Habitat. 4/15/2010 ...... Initiation of Status Review of the North Amer- Notice of Initiation of Status Review for List- 75 FR 19591–19592 ican Wolverine in the Contiguous United ing Decision. States. 4/15/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 19592–19607 Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Endangered or ranted. Threatened with Critical Habitat. 4/16/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List a Dis- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 19925–19935 tinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat. 4/20/2010 ...... Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento Notice of Initiation of Status Review for List- 75 FR 20547–20548 Splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus). ing Decision. 4/26/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Har- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 21568–21571 lequin Butterfly as Endangered. 4/27/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Su- Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 22012–22025 san’s Purse-making Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia ranted. susanae) as Threatened or Endangered. 4/27/2010 ...... 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the Mo- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 22063–22070 have Ground Squirrel as Endangered with Critical Habitat. 5/4/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Hermes Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 23654–23663 Copper Butterfly as Threatened or Endan- gered. 6/1/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 30313–30318 Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis. 6/1/2010 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 30338–30363 White-tailed Prairie Dog as Endangered or ranted. Threatened.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67941

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

6/9/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 32728–32734 Rossem’s Gull-billed Tern as Endangered or Threatened. 6/16/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions To List Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 34077–34088 Seven Species of Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered. 6/22/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 35398–35424 Least Chub as Threatened or Endangered. but precluded. 6/23/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Hon- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 35746–35751 duran Emerald Hummingbird as Endan- gered. 6/23/2010 ...... Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Sky- Proposed Listing Endangered Proposed List- 75 FR 35721–35746 rocket) as Endangered Throughout Its ing Threatened. Range, and Listing Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as Threat- ened Throughout Their Range. 6/24/2010 ...... Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 35990–36012 and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly As Endan- gered Throughout Their Ranges. 6/24/2010 ...... Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 36035–36057 Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges. 6/29/2010 ...... Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened .... Reinstatement of Proposed Listing Threat- 75 FR 37353–37358 ened. 7/20/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Pinus Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 42033–42040 albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat. 7/20/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 42040–42054 Amargosa Toad as Threatened or Endan- ranted. gered. 7/20/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Giant Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 42059–42066 Palouse Earthworm (Driloleirus americanus) as Threatened or Endangered. 7/27/2010 ...... Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 43844–43853 Puffleg as Endangered Throughout its Range; Final Rule. 7/27/2010 ...... Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 43853–43864 (Camarhynchus pauper) as Endangered Throughout Its Range. 8/3/2010 ...... Determination of Threatened Status for Five Final Listing Threatened ...... 75 FR 45497–45527 Penguin Species. 8/4/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 46894–46898 Mexican Gray Wolf as an Endangered Sub- species With Critical Habitat. 8/10/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 48294–48298 Arctostaphylos franciscana as Endangered with Critical Habitat. 8/17/2010 ...... Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 50813–50842 America and the Caribbean as Endangered Throughout Their Range. 8/17/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Brian Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not sub- 75 FR 50739–50742 Head Mountainsnail as Endangered or stantial. Threatened with Critical Habitat. 8/24/2010 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Okla- Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial 75 FR 51969–51974 homa Grass Pink Orchid as Endangered or Threatened. 9/1/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 53615–53629 White-Sided Jackrabbit as Threatened or ranted. Endangered. 9/8/2010 ...... Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Hellbender Proposed Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 54561–54579 Salamander as Endangered. 9/8/2010 ...... Revised 12-Month Finding To List the Upper Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 54707–54753 Missouri River Distinct Population Segment but precluded. of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or Threat- ened. 9/9/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 54822–54845 Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon but precluded. neomexicanus) as Endangered or Threat- ened with Critical Habitat.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67942 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

9/15/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 56028–56050 Sprague’s Pipit as Endangered or Threat- but precluded. ened Throughout Its Range. 9/22/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Agave Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 57720–57734 eggersiana (no common name) as Endan- but precluded. gered. 9/28/2010 ...... Determination of Endangered Status for the Final Listing Endangered ...... 75 FR 59645–59656 African Penguin. 9/28/2010 ...... Determination for the Gunnison Sage-grouse Notice of 12-month petition finding, Warranted 75 FR 59803–59863 as a Threatened or Endangered Species. but precluded. 9/30/2010 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month petition finding, Not war- 75 FR 60515–60561 Pygmy Rabbit as Endangered or Threat- ranted. ened.

Our expeditious progress also timelines, that is, timelines required they overlap geographically or have the includes work on listing actions that we under the Act. Actions in the bottom same threats as the species with the funded in FY 2010 but have not yet section of the table are high-priority high priority. Including these species been completed to date. These actions listing actions. These actions include together in the same proposed rule are listed below. Actions in the top work primarily on species with an LPN results in considerable savings in time section of the table are being conducted of 2, and selection of these species is and funding, as compared to preparing under a deadline set by a court. Actions partially based on available staff separate proposed rules for each of them in the middle section of the table are resources, and when appropriate, in the future. being conducted to meet statutory include species with a lower priority if

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

6 Birds from Eurasia ...... Final listing determination. Flat-tailed horned lizard ...... Final listing determination. Mountain plover 4 ...... Final listing determination. 6 Birds from Peru ...... Proposed listing determination. Sacramento splittail ...... 12-month petition finding. Pacific walrus ...... 12-month petition finding. Wolverine ...... 12-month petition finding. Solanum conocarpum ...... 12-month petition finding. Desert tortoise—Sonoran population ...... 12-month petition finding. Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding. Hermes copper butterfly 3 ...... 12-month petition finding.

Actions with Statutory Deadlines

Casey’s June beetle ...... Final listing determination. Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail ...... Final listing determination. 7 Bird species from Brazil ...... Final listing determination. Southern rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population ...... Final listing determination. 5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ...... Final listing determination. Queen Charlotte goshawk ...... Final listing determination. 5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and lau- Final listing determination. rel dace). Salmon crested cockatoo ...... Proposed listing determination. CA golden trout ...... 12-month petition finding. Black-footed albatross ...... 12-month petition finding. Mount Charleston blue butterfly ...... 12-month petition finding. Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Northern leopard frog ...... 12-month petition finding. Tehachapi slender salamander ...... 12-month petition finding. Coqui Llanero ...... 12-month petition finding. Dusky tree vole ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species 12-month petition finding. petition. 5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, 12-month petition finding. Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species petition. 2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) from 206 species petition ...... 12-month petition finding.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67943

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, 12-month petition finding. Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition. Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Gopher tortoise—eastern population ...... 12-month petition finding. Wrights marsh thistle ...... 12-month petition finding. 67 of 475 southwest species ...... 12-month petition finding. Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species petition) .. 12-month petition finding. 2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 12-month petition finding. species petition). 5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ...... 12-month petition finding. 14 parrots (foreign species) ...... 12-month petition finding. Berry Cave salamander 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Striped newt 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Mohave ground squirrel 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly ...... 12-month petition finding Western gull-billed tern ...... 12-month petition finding. Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) ...... 12-month petition finding. HI yellow-faced bees ...... 12-month petition finding. Giant Palouse earthworm ...... 12-month petition finding. Whitebark pine ...... 12-month petition finding. OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 ...... 12-month petition finding. Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Eagle Lake trout 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Smooth-billed ani 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. Bay Springs salamander 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. 32 species of snails and slugs 1 ...... 90-day petition finding. 42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) ...... 90-day petition finding. Red knot roselaari subspecies ...... 90-day petition finding. Peary caribou ...... 90-day petition finding. Plains bison ...... 90-day petition finding. Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. Spring pygmy sunfish ...... 90-day petition finding. Bay skipper ...... 90-day petition finding. Unsilvered fritillary ...... 90-day petition finding. Texas kangaroo rat ...... 90-day petition finding. Spot-tailed earless lizard ...... 90-day petition finding Eastern small-footed bat ...... 90-day petition finding. Northern long-eared bat ...... 90-day petition finding. Prairie chub ...... 90-day petition finding. 10 species of Great Basin butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. 6 sand dune (scarab) beetles ...... 90-day petition finding. Golden-winged warbler ...... 90-day petition finding. Sand-verbena moth ...... 90-day petition finding. 404 Southeast species ...... 90-day petition finding.

High-Priority Listing Actions 3

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = Proposed listing. 9). 19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN Proposed listing. = 8). Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Sand dune lizard) 3 (LPN = 2) ...... Proposed listing. 2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) ...... Proposed listing. New Mexico springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) ...... Proposed listing. 2 mussels 2 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) ...... Proposed listing. 2 mussels 2 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4)) ...... Proposed listing. Altamaha spinymussel 2 (LPN = 2) ...... Proposed listing. 8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell Proposed listing. (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)). 1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing priorities, these actions are still being developed. 3 Partially funded with FY 2010 funds; also will be funded with FY 2011 funds. 4 Funded with FY 2010 funds.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

We have endeavored to make our determine if a change in status is Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological listing actions as efficient and timely as warranted, including the need to make Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). possible, given the requirements of the prompt use of emergency listing Authors relevant law and regulations, and procedures. constraints relating to workload and We intend that any proposed listing The primary authors of this rule are personnel. We are continually action for Cirsium wrightii will be as the staff members of the New Mexico considering ways to streamline accurate as possible. Therefore, we will Ecological Services Office. processes or achieve economies of scale, continue to accept additional such as by batching related actions information and comments from all Authority together. Given our limited budget for concerned governmental agencies, the The authority for this section is implementing section 4 of the Act, these scientific community, industry, or any section 4 of the Endangered Species Act actions described above collectively other interested party concerning this of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et constitute expeditious progress. finding. seq.). Cirsium wrightii will be added to the list of candidate species upon References Cited Dated: October 13, 2010. publication of this 12-month finding. A complete list of all references cited Daniel M. Ashe, We will continue to monitor the status in this finding is available on the Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. of this species as new information Internet at http://www.regulations.gov [FR Doc. 2010–27740 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] becomes available. This review will or upon request from the Field BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:44 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM 04NOP1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 67945

Notices Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 213

Thursday, November 4, 2010

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 2010-0047 to submit or view comments receipt of a supplemental petition from contains documents other than rules or and to view supporting and related the Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and proposed rules that are applicable to the materials available electronically. KWS SAAT AG (KWS) requesting public. Notices of hearings and investigations, • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: ‘‘partial deregulation’’ or some similar committee meetings, agency decisions and Please send one copy of your comment administrative action under 7 CFR part rulings, delegations of authority, filing of to Docket No. APHIS-2010-0047, petitions and applications and agency 340 for sugar beets (Beta vulgaris ssp. statements of organization and functions are Regulatory Analysis and Development, vulgaris) designated as event H7–1 to examples of documents appearing in this PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 authorize its continued cultivation section. River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD subject to carefully tailored interim 20737–1238. Please state that your measures proposed by APHIS. APHIS comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– has prepared a draft environmental DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2010–0047. assessment (EA) for event H7–1 sugar Reading Room: You may read any beets, which have been genetically Animal and Plant Health Inspection comments that we receive on this engineered for tolerance to the herbicide Service docket in our reading room. The reading glyphosate and are considered regulated room is located in room 1141 of the articles under the regulations in 7 CFR [Docket No. APHIS–2010–0047] USDA South Building, 14th Street and part 340. Independence Avenue, SW., Monsanto Company and KWS SAAT The supplemental petition is related AG; Availability of an Environmental Washington, DC. Normal reading room to a petition submitted by Monsanto and Assessment for Supplemental Request hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday KWS on November 19, 2003, seeking a for Partial Deregulation of Sugar Beets through Friday, except holidays. To be determination of nonregulated status for Genetically Engineered To Be Tolerant sure someone is there to help you, event H7–1 sugar beets (Petition 03– to the Herbicide Glyphosate please call (202) 690–2817 before coming. 323–01). On October 19, 2004, APHIS AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Other Information: Additional published a notice in the Federal Inspection Service, USDA. information about APHIS and its Register (69 FR 61466–61467, Docket ACTION: Notice. programs is available on the Internet at No. 04–075–1) announcing that the http://www.aphis.usda.gov. Monsanto/KWS petition and an EA SUMMARY: We are advising the public FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. were available for public review. On that the Animal and Plant Health Rick Coker, Biotechnology Regulatory March 17, 2005, we published a notice Inspection Service (APHIS) has Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit in the Federal Register (70 FR 13007– prepared a draft environmental 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 13008, Docket No. 04–075–2) advising assessment as part of its decisionmaking 734–5720. To obtain copies of the the public of our determination, process to address a supplemental environmental assessment, contact Ms. effective March 4, 2005, that event request for partial deregulation of sugar Cynthia Eck at (301) 734–0667; e-mail: H7–1 sugar beets were no longer beets genetically engineered (GE) for [email protected]. considered a regulated article under tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The APHIS regulations in 7 CFR part 340. for similar administrative action to regulations in 7 CFR part 340, On September 21, 2009, the U.S. District authorize the continued cultivation of ‘‘Introduction of Organisms and Court for the Northern District of the GE sugar beets subject to carefully Products Altered or Produced Through California issued a ruling in a lawsuit tailored interim measures proposed by Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant challenging APHIS’ decision to APHIS. This environmental assessment Pests or Which There Is Reason to deregulate event H7–1 sugar beets. The will be available for public comment for Believe Are Plant Pests,’’ regulate, Court’s September 21, 2009, ruling 30 days. Comments received by the end among other things, the introduction invalidated APHIS’ decision to grant of the 30-day period will be analyzed (importation, interstate movement, or nonregulated status to event H7–1 sugar and used to inform APHIS’ decision on release into the environment) of beets until APHIS prepares a full whether to grant the supplemental organisms and products altered or environmental impact statement (EIS) request for ‘‘partial deregulation’’ of the produced through genetic engineering supporting its decision. Accordingly, GE sugar beets or to grant some similar that are plant pests or that there is event H7–1 sugar beets are once again administrative action to authorize the reason to believe are plant pests. Such a regulated article and subject to APHIS’ continued cultivation of the GE sugar genetically engineered organisms and regulatory oversight under 7 CFR part beets subject to carefully tailored products are considered ‘‘regulated 340. interim measures proposed by APHIS. articles.’’ The draft EA analyzes the alternatives DATES: We will consider all comments On October 8, 2010, the Animal and available to APHIS for its decision that we receive on or before December Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regarding this supplemental request for 1 6, 2010. published a notice in the Federal ‘‘partial deregulation’’ or for similar ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Register (75 FR 62365–62366, Docket administrative action to authorize the by either of the following methods: No. APHIS–2010–0047) announcing cultivation of event H7–1 sugar beets • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// subject to carefully tailored interim 1 To review the notice and the supplemental www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ petition, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ measures proposed by APHIS. Based on component/ fdmspublic/component/ the scope of the draft EA, the specific main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS- main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0047. decisions to be made are:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

• Should APHIS grant the cultivation. These conditions are implementing the procedural provisions supplemental request for ‘‘partial intended both to minimize any potential of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), deregulation’’ or similar administrative for the escape and dissemination of (3) USDA regulations implementing action to authorize the continued plant pests and the likelihood of NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ cultivation of event H7–1 sugar beets impacts of concern raised by the Court NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR subject to the interim measures in the lawsuit challenging APHIS’ part 372). proposed by APHIS in Federal District decision to deregulate event H7–1 sugar The draft EA may be viewed on the Court? beets. Regulations.gov Web site or in our • Should APHIS continue to regulate • Alternative 3—Partial Deregulation reading room. (Instructions for accessing the environmental release and of Event H7–1 Sugar Beets (Seed/Root). Regulations.gov and information on the movement of event H7–1 sugar beets This alternative would grant the petition location and hours of the reading room under 7 CFR part 340? request for partial deregulation to allow are provided under the heading • What conditions (interim regulatory the commercial production of event H7– ADDRESSES at the beginning of this measures) should be imposed to prevent 1 sugar beets. The supplemental request notice.) In addition, copies may be any potential plant pest risk from that APHIS received from Monsanto/ obtained by calling or writing to the planted event H7–1 sugar beets that KWS did not clearly explain what the individual listed under FOR FURTHER remain under regulation, to minimize petitioners mean or envision by a INFORMATION CONTACT. disruptions to U.S. sugar beet ‘‘partial deregulation.’’ The petitioner Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– production, and to minimize the did not identify any specific 7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and likelihood of impacts of concern to the mechanism(s) that would be used to 371.3. Court until APHIS can complete an EIS impose the conditions to prevent any before making a determination on Done in Washington, DC this 1st day of potential plant pest risks, which parties November 2010. whether or not to grant nonregulated would be subject to the conditions, or Kevin Shea, status to event H7–1 sugar beets? how compliance with the conditions • Would the preferred alternative, if would be ensured. APHIS has Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. selected (see alternative 2 below), have interpreted this petition to mean that significant impacts on the quality of the Monsanto/KWS is requesting that event [FR Doc. 2010–27970 Filed 11–2–10; 11:15 am] human environment requiring H7–1 sugar beets would no longer be BILLING CODE 3410–34–P preparation of an EIS? regulated under 7 CFR part 340 The draft EA has been prepared to provided that they are cultivated under DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE analyze the alternatives available to the conditions and interim measures APHIS for responding to this that APHIS proposed to the Court. Forest Service supplemental request and to provide the APHIS further interprets the request to public with documentation of APHIS’ mean that Monsanto/KWS would be the Gallatin County Resource Advisory review and analysis of any potential responsible party for overseeing Committee individual and cumulative implementation and monitoring of environmental impacts associated with conditions for cultivation of event H7– AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. the ‘‘partial deregulation’’ or for similar 1 sugar beets. Under this alternative, ACTION: Notice of meeting. administrative action to authorize the APHIS would grant the petition for SUMMARY: The Gallatin National Forest’s cultivation of event H7–1 sugar beets partial deregulation; APHIS would no Gallatin County Resource Advisory subject to carefully tailored interim longer regulate event H7–1sugar beets Committee will meet in Bozeman, measures proposed by APHIS. under 7CFR Part 340; and the Montana. The committee is meeting as The draft EA considers and evaluates cultivation of event H7–1 sugar beets authorized under the Secure Rural three reasonable alternatives. The would be allowed under conditions alternatives analyzed in the draft EA imposed by Monsanto/KWS through Schools and Community Self- include: technology stewardship agreements, Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) • Alternative 1—APHIS Denies contracts, or other legal instruments. and in compliance with the Federal Petition Request for Partial Alternatives considered but rejected Advisory Committee Act. The purpose Deregulation/No Further Actions To in the draft EA include: (1) Deregulating is of the meeting is to determine Authorize Cultivation of Event H7–1 root production under conditions parameters and timeframes for the first Sugar Beets (No Action). This imposed by APHIS while prohibiting round of projects and Public Comments. alternative would deny the request for seed production, (2) deregulating root DATES: The meeting will be held on ‘‘partial deregulation’’ or any similar production under conditions imposed November 17, 2010, and will begin at administrative action under 7 CFR part by APHIS while authorizing continued 12:30 p.m. 340 for the cultivation of event H7–1 seed production under APHIS permits ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at sugar beets, thereby halting any or notification, (3) deregulating seed the Bozeman Public Library, Large consideration of authorizing commercial production under conditions imposed Meeting Room, 626 East Main, production until the completion of the by APHIS while prohibiting root Bozeman, MT. Written comments EIS. production, and (4) deregulating seed should be sent to Babete Anderson, • Alternative 2—Event H7–1 Sugar production under conditions imposed Custer National Forest, 1310 Main Beet Production (Seed/Root) Under by APHIS while authorizing continued Street, Billings, MT 59105. Comments APHIS 7 CFR Part 340 (Preferred root production under APHIS permits or may also be sent via e-mail to Alternative). APHIS’ preferred notification. [email protected], or via facsimile to alternative is to authorize the The draft EA was prepared in 406–657–6222. commercial production of event H7–1 accordance with (1) The National All comments, including names and sugar beets under APHIS permits, in Environmental Policy Act of 1969 addresses when provided, are placed in accordance with 7 CFR part 340, subject (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 the record and are available for public to mandatory conditions to prevent any et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on inspection and copying. The public may potential plant pest risks from such Environmental Quality for inspect comments received at Custer

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67947

National Forest, 13 10 Main Street, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Copies of the above information Billings, MT 59105. Visitors are meeting agenda will focus on reviewing collection proposal can be obtained by encouraged to call ahead to 406–657– proposals for forest projects and calling or writing Diana Hynek, 6205 ext 239. recommending funding during the Departmental Paperwork Clearance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: business meeting. The public forum Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of Babete Anderson, RAG coordinator, begins at 11 a.m. Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and USDA, Custer National Forest, 1310 Dated: October 27, 2010. Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, Main Street, Billings, MT 59105; (406) Ranotta K. Mcnair, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]). 657–6205 ext 239; E-mail Forest Supervisor. [email protected]. Written comments and Individuals who use [FR Doc. 2010–27738 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] recommendations for the proposed telecommunication devices for the deaf BILLING CODE 3410–11–M information collection should be sent (TDD) may call the Federal Information within 30 days of publication of this Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Mountain DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Officer, via e-mail Standard Time, Monday through Friday. [email protected], or fax Submission for OMB Review; to (202) 395–5167. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Comment Request meeting is open to the public. The Dated: October 29, 2010. following business will be conducted: The Department of Commerce will Gwellnar Banks, Review first round of project proposals submit to the Office of Management and Management Analyst, Office of the Chief and Public Comments. Persons who Budget (OMB) for clearance the Information Officer. wish to bring related matters to the following proposal for collection of [FR Doc. 2010–27843 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] information under the provisions of the attention of the Committee may file BILLING CODE 3510–33–P written statements with the Committee Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. staff before or after the meeting. Public chapter 35). input sessions will be provided and Agency: Bureau of Industry and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE individuals who made written request Security (BIS). by November 12th will have the Title: Triangular Transactions Submission for OMB Review; opportunity to address the Committee at Covered by a U.S. Import Certificate. Comment Request those sessions. OMB Control Number: 0694–0009. Form Number(s): N/A. The Department of Commerce will Dated: October 28, 2010. Type of Request: Regular submission. submit to the Office of Management and Chris Worth, Burden Hours: 1. Budget (OMB) for clearance the Deputy Forest Supervisor. Number of Respondents: 1. following proposal for collection of [FR Doc. 2010–27734 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Average Hours per Response: 30 information under the provisions of the BILLING CODE 3410–11–M minutes. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Needs and Uses: Section 15(b) of the Chapter 35). Export Administration Act (EAA) of Agency: National Oceanic and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1979, as amended, authorizes the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). President and the Secretary of Title: Alaska Region Gear Forest Service Commerce to issue regulations to Identification Requirements. implement the EAA including those OMB Control Number: 0648–0353. Notice of Idaho Panhandle Resource provisions authorizing the control of Form Number(s): None. Advisory Committee Meeting exports of U.S. goods and technology to Type of Request: Regular submission AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. all foreign destinations, as necessary for (extension of a currently approved ACTION: Notice of meeting. the purpose of national security, foreign information collection). policy and short supply, and the Number of Respondents: 1,692. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in provision prohibiting U.S. persons from Average Hours per Response: 15 the Federal Advisory Committee Act participating in certain foreign boycotts. minutes. (Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure The triangular symbol is stamped on Burden Hours: 3,138. Rural Schools and Community Self- the U.S. import certificate as Needs and Uses: This request is for Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110– notification that the importer does not renewal of an existing information 343) the Idaho Panhandle Resource intend to import or retain the items in collection. Advisory Committee will meet Friday, the country issuing the certificate, but Participants in the groundfish November 12, 2010, at 9 a.m. in Coeur that, in any case, the items will not be fisheries in the Exclusive Economic d’Alene, Idaho for a business meeting. delivered to any other destination Zone off the coast of Alaska are required The business meeting is open to the except in accordance with the Export to mark identification information on public. Administration Regulations. If this marker buoys for hook-and-line, longline pot, and pot-and-line gear. The DATES: November 12, 2010. procedure were not followed, strategic commodities could be delivered to information is needed for fishery ADDRESSES: The meeting location is the enforcement purposes. The cooperating Idaho Panhandle National Forests’ unauthorized destinations. Affected Public: Business and other fishermen also use the gear Supervisor’s Office, located at 3815 for-profit organizations; and not-for- identification to report placement or Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho profit institutions. occurrence of gear in unauthorized 83815. Frequency: On occasion. areas. Fishermen marking their gear FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Respondent’s Obligation: Required to correctly ultimately benefit, as Ranotta K. McNair, Forest Supervisor obtain benefits. unauthorized and illegal fishing is and Designated Federal Official, at (208) OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, deterred and more burdensome 765–7369. (202) 395–3123. regulations are avoided. Regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

describing the requirements are at 50 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IV. Request for Comments CFR 679.24. I. Abstract Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Affected Public: Business or other for- the proposed collection of information profit organizations. The National Marine Fisheries Service is necessary for the proper performance Frequency: Annually. (NMFS), Southwest Region (SWR), Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. of the functions of the agency, including manages the United States (U.S.)- whether the information shall have OMB Desk Officer: Canada Albacore Tuna Treaty of 1981 _ practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the OIRA [email protected]. (Treaty). Owners of vessels that fish Copies of the above information agency’s estimate of the burden from U.S. West Coast ports for albacore (including hours and cost) of the collection proposal can be obtained by tuna will be required to notify NMFS calling or writing Diana Hynek, proposed collection of information; SWR of their desire to be on the list of (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, Departmental Paperwork Clearance vessels provided to Canada each year Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of and clarity of the information to be indicating vessels eligible to fish for collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and albacore tuna in waters under the Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, burden of the collection of information jurisdiction of Canada. Additionally, on respondents, including through the DC 20230 (or via the Internet at vessel operators are required to report in [email protected]). use of automated collection techniques advance their intention to fish in or other forms of information Written comments and Canadian waters prior to crossing the recommendations for the proposed technology. maritime border as well as to mark their Comments submitted in response to information collection should be sent fishing vessels to facilitate enforcement within 30 days of publication of this this notice will be summarized and/or of the effort limits under the Treaty. included in the request for OMB notice to Vessel operators are also required to [email protected]. approval of this information collection; maintain and submit a logbook of all they also will become a matter of public Dated: November 1, 2010. catch and fishing effort. The regulations record. Gwellnar Banks, implementing the reporting and vessel Dated: November 1, 2010. Management Analyst, Office of the Chief marking requirements under the Treaty Information Officer. are at 50 CFR part 300.172–300.176. Gwellnar Banks, [FR Doc. 2010–27874 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Management Analyst, Office of the Chief II. Method of Collection Information Officer. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Requests to be placed on the vessel [FR Doc. 2010–27859 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] eligibility list may be made in writing BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE via mail, fax, by e-mail, or by telephone. Communications to comply with ‘hail National Oceanic and Atmospheric in’ and ‘hail out’ requirements are made DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Administration via ship to shore radio or via telephone and are compiled in an electronic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Proposed Information Collection; database by Canada Department of Administration Comment Request; U.S.-Canada Fisheries and Oceans. Summaries of Albacore Treaty Reporting System Proposed Information Collection; hail reports are provided to NMFS on a Comment Request; Marine AGENCY: National Oceanic and periodic basis. Vessel marking Recreational Information Program Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), requirements entail painting the letter (Marine Recreational Fisheries Commerce. ‘U’ immediately after the U.S. Coast Statistics Survey) ACTION: Notice. Guard documentation identification number already on the vessel. Logbooks AGENCY: National Oceanic and SUMMARY: The Department of are maintained in pre-printed paper Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce, as part of its continuing format and submitted via mail. Commerce. effort to reduce paperwork and ACTION: Notice. respondent burden, invites the general III. Data public and other Federal agencies to OMB Control Number: 0648–0492. SUMMARY: The Department of take this opportunity to comment on Form Number: None. Commerce, as part of its continuing proposed and/or continuing information Type of Review: Regular submission. effort to reduce paperwork and collections, as required by the Affected Public: Business or other for- respondent burden, invites the general Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. profit organizations. public and other Federal agencies to DATES: Written comments must be Estimated Number of Respondents: take this opportunity to comment on submitted on or before January 3, 2011. 100. proposed and/or continuing information ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Estimated Time per Response: 5 collections, as required by the to Diana Hynek, Departmental minutes to make the request to be Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Paperwork Clearance Officer, placed on the eligible list per year; 10 DATES: Written comments must be Department of Commerce, Room 6616, minutes for each set of two hail reports submitted on or before January 3, 2011. 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., for border crossings per year, 5 minutes ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Washington, DC 20230 (or via the to make the required vessel markings to Diana Hynek, Departmental Internet at [email protected]). per year, and an estimated 2 and one Paperwork Clearance Officer, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: half hours for logbook maintenance and Department of Commerce, Room 6616, Requests for additional information or submission. 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., copies of the information collection Estimated Total Annual Burden Washington, DC 20230 (or via the instrument and instructions should be Hours: 283. Internet at [email protected]). directed to Chris Fanning, (562) 980– Estimated Total Annual Cost to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 4198 or [email protected]. Public: $3,955. Requests for additional information or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67949

copies of the information collection 3 minutes for economic mail surveys of 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of instrument(s) and instructions should licensed anglers, 20 minutes for mail Commerce in Room 3720. be directed to Rob Andrews, (301) 713– expenditure surveys, 20 minutes for Docket Number: 10–046. Applicant: 2328 or [email protected]. mail stated preference surveys, University of Connecticut, Purchasing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1.5 minutes for verification calls. Department, 3 North Hillside Road, Unit Estimated Total Annual Burden 6076, Storrs, CT 06269–6076. I. Abstract Hours: 91,296. Instrument: Electron Microscope. This submission is a renewal of an Estimated Total Annual Cost to Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech existing information collection. Public: $0. Republic. Intended Use: The instrument Marine recreational anglers are will be used for many experiments, such surveyed for catch and effort data, fish IV. Request for Comments as studying the mechanism of the biology data, and angler socioeconomic Comments Are Invited on: (a) growth of nano particles of TiO2 from characteristics. These data are required Whether the proposed collection of solution for dye-sensitized solar cell. to carry out provisions of the Magnuson- information is necessary for the proper The instrument has unique features that Stevens Fishery Conservation and performance of the functions of the allow operation in ESEM and in-situ Management Act (MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1801 agency, including whether the modes. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: et seq.), as amended, regarding information shall have practical utility; There are no instruments of the same conservation and management of fishery (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate general category manufactured in the resources. of the burden (including hours and cost) United States. Application accepted by Marine recreational fishing catch and of the proposed collection of Commissioner of Customs: September effort data are currently collected information; (c) ways to enhance the 22, 2010. through a combination of telephone quality, utility, and clarity of the Docket Number: 10–060. Applicant: surveys and on-site intercept surveys information to be collected; and (d) The University of Texas at Arlington, with recreational anglers and for-hire ways to minimize the burden of the 7300 Jack Newell Blvd. S., Fort Worth, vessel operators. Recent amendments to collection of information on TX 76118. Instrument: Electron the MSA require the development of an respondents, including through the use Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI improved data collection program for of automated collection techniques or Company, Czech Republic. Intended recreational fisheries. To address these other forms of information technology. Use: The instrument will be used for requirements, NOAA Fisheries has automated manipulation of nanoscale Comments submitted in response to implemented the Marine Recreational components and their assembly/ this notice will be summarized and/or Information Program (MRIP) to replace integration into a micro/meso scale included in the request for OMB the Marine Recreational Fisheries device. The instrument is the only approval of this information collection; Statistics Survey. MRIP is testing instrument that can provide ultra-high they also will become a matter of public alternative approaches for surveying resolution images in both high and low record. recreational anglers in an effort to vacuum pressure ranges. Justification improve the quality, resolution and Dated: October 29, 2010. for Duty-Free Entry: There are no timeliness of recreational fishing Gwellnar Banks, instruments of the same general statistics. Management Analyst, Office of the Chief category manufactured in the United Information Officer. States. Application accepted by II. Method of Collection [FR Doc. 2010–27826 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Commissioner of Customs: October 5, Information will be collected through BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 2010. telephone, mail, online (Web), and face- Dated: October 29, 2010. to-face interviews. Gregory Campbell, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE III. Data Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement OMB Control Number: 0648–0052. International Trade Administration Office. Form Number: None. [FR Doc. 2010–27885 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Type of Review: Regular submission Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P (renewal of an existing information Scientific Instruments collection). Affected Public: Individuals or Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE households, business or other for-profit Educational, Scientific and Cultural organizations. Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. International Trade Administration Estimated Number of Respondents: L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of 1,098,647. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), Scientific Instruments Estimated Time per Response: we invite comments on the question of 1.5 minutes for household telephone whether instruments of equivalent Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the interviews, 6 minutes for telephone scientific value, for the purposes for Educational, Scientific and Cultural interviews with licensed anglers, which the instruments shown below are Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 5 minutes for telephone interviews with intended to be used, are being L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. party/charter boat operators, manufactured in the United States. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), 6 minutes for face-to-face interviews Comments must comply with 15 CFR we invite comments on the question of with intercepted anglers, 4 minutes for 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and whether instruments of equivalent household mail surveys, 7 minutes for be postmarked on or before November scientific value, for the purposes for mail surveys of licensed anglers, 24, 2010. Address written comments to which the instruments shown below are 60 minutes for face-to-face economic Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room intended to be used, are being surveys with party/charter boat 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, manufactured in the United States. operators, 30 minutes for economic mail Washington, DC 20230. Applications Comments must comply with 15 CFR surveys of party/charter boat operators, may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

be postmarked on or before November Instrument: Electron Microscope. September 22, 2010. Comments: None 24, 2010. Address written comments to Manufacturer: FEI Company, the received. Decision: Approved. Reasons: Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at The instrument must meet the following 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 75 FR 57738, September 22, 2010. specifications: an 11 mm diameter beam Washington, DC 20230. Applications Docket Number: 10–057. Applicant: aperture, a He leak rate of < 2 × 10∧ ¥ may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and Curators of the University of Missouri, 8 mbar I/sec, HV compatible to < 5 × 10 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Rolla, MO 56049. Instrument: Electron ¥ 7 mbar vacuum, an operational range Commerce in Room 3720. Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI of 2 bar to 7 bar, a 6 mm pneumatic air Docket Number: 10–064. Applicant: Company, the Netherlands. Intended connection, and a 24 VCD (1.2W) at 50 The University of Texas at Austin, Use: See notice at 75 FR 57738, mA solenoid with flying leads. We Center for Electromechanics, Pickle September 22, 2010. know of no instruments of equivalent Research Campus 10100 Burnet Road, Docket Number: 10–058. Applicant: scientific value to the foreign Bldg. 133, Austin, Texas 78758–4497. SUNY Upstate Medical University, instruments described below, for such Instrument: Hexapod Actuators. Syracuse, NY 13210. Instrument: purposes as this is intended to be used, Manufacturer: ADS International, S.r.l., Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: that was being manufactured in the Italy. Intended Use: The instrument will JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See United States at the time of its order. be used on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope notice at 75 FR 57738, September 22, Docket Number: 10–059. Applicant: for the study of ‘‘Dark Energy.’’ The 2010. University of Chicago, LLC, Lemont, IL instrument is unique because of its Comments: None received. Decision: 60439. Instrument: Micropitting Test ability to achieve the desired accuracy Approved. No instrument of equivalent Machine. Manufacturer: Primelia of +/¥ 2 microns, the stiffness of 400 N/ scientific value to the foreign Consulting Services Limited, United micron, the end mounts ability to rotate instrument, for such purposes as these Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 75 up to +/¥ 20 degrees in two axes and instruments are intended to be used, FR 57738, September 22, 2010. a stiffness of 250 N/micron, is actively was being manufactured in the United Comments: None received. Decision: cooled, and is able to generate 30kN of States at the time the instruments were Approved. Reasons: The instrument has continuous force for extended periods of ordered. Reasons: Each foreign capabilities that are tailored for the time. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: instrument is an electron microscope specific micropitting analysis, There are no instruments of the same and is intended for research or scientific specifically the accelerometer general category being manufactured in educational uses requiring an electron measurement to monitor for onset of the United States. Application accepted microscope. We know of no electron fatigue failure. The instrument also has by Commissioner of Customs: October microscope, or any other instrument three points of contact which will 20, 2010. suited to these purposes, which was increase the speed at which tests are being manufactured in the United States Dated: October 29, 2010. made. We know of no instruments of at the time of order of each instrument. Gregory Campbell, equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Dated: October 29, 2010. Office. Gregory W. Campbell, purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the [FR Doc. 2010–27887 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement United States at the time of its order. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Office, Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–27889 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Dated: October 29, 2010. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Gregory W. Campbell, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration. International Trade Administration DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [FR Doc. 2010–27888 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] National Institutes of Health, et al.; International Trade Administration BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of The University of Georgia (UGA), et al.; DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Electron Microscopes Notice of Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific National Oceanic and Atmospheric This is a decision consolidated Instruments pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Administration Educational, Scientific, and Cultural This is a decision pursuant to Section Notice of Designation of the Lake Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Superior National Estuarine Research L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– Cultural Materials Importation Act of Reserve in Wisconsin 36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Related records can be viewed between Pub. L. 06–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part AGENCY: Estuarine Reserves Division, 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. 301). Related records can be viewed Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Department of Commerce, 14th and between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room Management, National Ocean Service, Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric DC. 14th and Constitution Ave., NW., Administration, U.S. Department of Docket Number: 10–055. Applicant: Washington, DC. Commerce. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Docket Number: 10–054. Applicant: ACTION: Notice of Designation and MD 20892. Instrument: Electron The University of Georgia (UGA), availability of Notice of Record of Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Athens, GA 30602–7229. Instrument: Decision. Limited, Japan. Intended Use: See notice HV Pneumatic Quadrant Beam Position at 75 FR 57738, September 22, 2010. Monitor with I404 Quad Current SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Docket Number: 10–056. Applicant: Integrator. Manufacturer: FMB Oxford the National Oceanic and Atmospheric University of Notre Dame, Procurement Limited, United Kingdom. Intended Administration (NOAA), U.S. Services, Notre Dame, IN 46556. Use: See notice at 75 FR 57738, Department of Commerce, has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67951

designated certain lands and waters of amended, notification is hereby given marine mammals by harassment. the St. Louis River freshwater estuary in that an Incidental Harassment Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day Wisconsin as the Lake Superior Authorization (IHA) to take marine time limit for NMFS review of an National Estuarine Research Reserve. mammals, by harassment, incidental to application followed by a 30-day public On October 19, 2010, Under Secretary derelict creosote piling and structure notice and comment period on any of Commerce for Oceans and removal within the Woodard Bay proposed authorizations for the Atmosphere Dr. Jane Lubchenco signed Natural Resources Conservation Area incidental harassment of marine a record of decision pursuant to the (NRCA) has been issued to the mammals. Within 45 days of the close National Environmental Policy Act and Washington State Department of Natural of the comment period, NMFS must a findings of designation for the Lake Resources (DNR). either issue or deny the authorization. Superior National Estuarine Research DATES: This authorization is effective Except with respect to certain Reserve in Wisconsin pursuant to from November 1, 2010–February 28, activities not pertinent here, the MMPA Section 315 of the Coastal Zone 2011. defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Management Act of 1972, as amended, ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 16 U.S.C. Section 1461, and its IHA, and a list of references used in this which (i) has the potential to injure a marine implementing regulations at 15 CFR Part document may be obtained by writing to mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 921. The Reserve duly received P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential certification from the State of Wisconsin to disturb a marine mammal or marine Conservation and Education Division, mammal stock in the wild by causing Coastal Program that Reserve Office of Protected Resources, National designation is consistent to the disruption of behavioral patterns, including, Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East- but not limited to, migration, breathing, maximum extent practicable with its West Highway, Silver Spring, MD nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering program. A copy of the official Record 20910–3225, by telephoning the contact [Level B harassment]. of Decision is available for public listed here, or visiting NMFS Web site review from NOAA’s Office of Ocean at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ Summary of Request and Coastal Resource Management at permits/incidental.htm#applications. On June 9, 2010, NMFS received an the address below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben application from the WA DNR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laws, Office of Protected Resources, requesting authorization to take, by Laurie McGilvray (301) 713–3155 x158, NMFS, (301) 713–2289. harassment, small numbers of marine Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mammals incidental to derelict creosote Ocean and Coastal Resource piling and structure removal associated Management, National Ocean Service, Background with a habitat restoration project within NOAA, 1305 East West Highway, N/ Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the the Woodard Bay NRCA, Washington. ORM5, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A copy MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct The specified activity includes removal of the Record of Decision for each the Secretary of Commerce to allow, of approximately 615 timber pilings and Reserve is available upon request. upon request, the incidental, but not a trestle located in Woodard Bay and a Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number intentional, taking of small numbers of portion of pier superstructure located at 11.420 (Coastal Zone Management) Research marine mammals by U.S. citizens who the mouth of Chapman Bay. Pilings will Reserves. engage in a specified activity (other than be removed by vibratory hammer Dated: October 22, 2010. commercial fishing) within a specified extraction methods and structures will Donna Wieting, geographical region if certain findings be removed via cable lifting. In addition, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal are made and either regulations are approximately 25 nest boxes for purple Resource Management. issued or, if the taking is limited to martins will be relocated from removed harassment, a notice of a proposed [FR Doc. 2010–27878 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] pilings to pilings that are retained for authorization is provided to the public BILLING CODE 3510–08–P seal habitat and buffer, using a small for review. boat if necessary and will require a Authorization for incidental takings battery powered drill. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE shall be granted if NMFS finds that the Harbor seals have been utilizing the taking will have a negligible impact on remnant log boom structures at National Oceanic and Atmospheric the species or stock(s), will not have an Woodard Bay NRCA as haul-out habitat Administration unmitigable adverse impact on the for resting, pupping and molting for availability of the species or stock(s) for more than 30 years. These booms are [RIN 0648–XZ78] subsistence uses (where relevant), and if situated among the piles and structure Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to the permissible methods of taking and planned for removal. The WA DNR Specified Activities; Piling and requirements pertaining to the anticipates harbor seals will flush into Structure Removal in Woodard Bay mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the water upon crew arrival and onset Natural Resources Conservation Area, such takings are set forth. NMFS has of pile and structure removal activities; ‘‘ ’’ Washington defined negligible impact in 50 CFR hence, harbor seals may be harassed 216.103 as ‘‘* * * an impact resulting during pile removal activities. Since the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries from the specified activity that cannot activity has the potential to take marine Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and be reasonably expected to, and is not mammals, a marine mammal take Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reasonably likely to, adversely affect the authorization under the MMPA is Commerce. species or stock through effects on warranted. annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental Description of the Specified Activity harassment authorization. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by The Woodard Bay NRCA, located SUMMARY: In accordance with which citizens of the United States can within Henderson Inlet in southern regulations implementing the Marine apply for an authorization to Puget Sound, was designated by the Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as incidentally take small numbers of Washington State Legislature in 1987 to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67952 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

protect a large, intact complex of possibly using a separate boat, so that levels associated with vibratory nearshore habitats and related biological no additional work days near the extraction to ensure source levels do not communities, and to provide haulout are necessary. Presence of crew have the potential to cause injury. opportunities for low-impact public use relocating nest boxes may result in Response: There are no known and environmental education for the behavioral harassment of seals. acoustic data available on source levels people of Washington. The site includes However, because this will be for timber pile extraction using a the former Weyerhaeuser South Bay Log completed in tandem with pile removal, vibratory hammer. Based on discussion Dump, which operated from the 1920s no substantial additional harassment is later in this document (see Effects on until the 1980s. The remnant structures anticipated. Marine Mammals), NMFS is confident from the log dump, including several that sound produced by the vibratory Comments and Responses hundred creosoted pilings, and a trestle extraction of derelict timber piles will and pier, continue to negatively impact A notice of receipt and request for not approach 190 dB re: 1 microPa nearshore ecosystems protected by the public comment on the Federal Register (rms), the threshold for Level A conservation area. Therefore, the DNR notice of proposed authorization was (injurious) harassment of pinnipeds. As will remove these dilapidated structures published on August 12, 2010 (75 FR such, NMFS is not requiring a sound to enhance the processes, functions, and 48941). During the 30-day public verification study be conducted. structures of the nearshore ecosystems. comment period, NMFS received Comment 3: The Commission A few of the remnant log booms from comments from the Marine Mammal recommended that NMFS condition the dumping operations have supported a Commission (Commission) on the IHA to give the protected species healthy population of harbor seals for proposed IHA. No comments were observer (PSO) the authority to shut more than 30 years by providing received by any other members of the down the proposed activity if he or she haulout habitat. However, seals public. believes that a seal is at risk from direct concentrate themselves and primarily Comment 1: The Commission strike. haul out at only two locations within recommended that NMFS require that Response: Vibratory pile removal is a the NRCA (see Figure 4 in application). the applicant provide consistent technique that does not require Approximately 615 (average 12 inch monitoring beginning 30 minutes before ‘‘strikes’’, as stated in the Commission’s diameter) pilings will be removed near all daily activities are initiated and comment. ‘Striking’ is associated with but not directly adjacent to haulouts. An ending 30 minute after all daily impact pile driving; however, PSOs and average of 30 pilings per day will be activities cease. equipment operators will be alert to any removed via vibratory hammer Response: NMFS does not agree that potential marine mammal strike from extraction methods. Operations will monitoring need be conducted at all equipment use in general. Should the begin on the pilings and structures that times during this low-level activity as PSO determine that seals could become are furthest from the seal haul-out so there is no potential serious injury or injured via this form of strike (which that there is an opportunity for the seals mortality and the probability of an would require an extremely close to adjust to the presence of the animal being physically injured from approach by an animal), he or she is contractors and their equipment. In the equipment is extremely low if not responsible for alerting the equipment addition, no pilings within 30 yards (27 discountable. In addition, no other operator to the potential close approach. m) of booms used as seal haulout habitat marine mammal species are present The operator is then required to shut- will be removed. The DNR estimates it within the action area, and are therefore down the equipment as necessary to will take approximately 1 minute to not likely to be affected by DNR’s avoid direct strike. The DNR will vibrate the piling free from the activities. Marine mammal monitoring instruct the hammer operator to abide substrate, after which a crane will be will be required at the start of the by the PSO’s recommendations. In used to lift the pile out of the water. project, twice a week when pile removal addition, no activity will be initiated Therefore, the vibratory hammer will is occurring within 100 yards of the until or unless seals are at a sufficient operate for only 30 intermittent minutes haul out area, for two days when distance (i.e., 50 feet (15 m)) from the daily. Vibratory extraction operations activities move to a new location within activity so as to minimize the risk of will occur for approximately 21 days the NRCA, during five of the days of direct injury from the equipment, piling over the 4-month work window work on the Chapman Bay Pier, and for or structure breaking free or from (November 1 and February 28). Other at least six other days during the 40 day equipment. In summary, PSOs will have work days will be spent removing work period to be decided when the the authority to instruct operators to pilings associated with the trestle, project schedule is provided by the shut equipment down in the event that which is over 850 m from the closest contractor. Similar to scientific research a seal is at risk from direct strike by haulout, and pier superstructure, which studies, when correcting for effort, the equipment; however, due to the does not involve vibratory extraction. A DNR and NMFS should be able to implementation of proposed mitigation complete description of the specified adequately determine the number of measures this is an extremely remote activity can be found in the proposed animals taken and impacts of the project possibility. IHA notice for this action (75 FR 48941; on marine mammals based on the Comment 4: The Commission August 12, 2010). monitoring plan. Should extreme recommended that NMFS continue to Approximately 25 purple martin nest reactions of seals occur (e.g., require ramp-up or soft-starts. boxes will be relocated from the abandonment of the haulout) at any Response: As described in the removed piles to the pilings that time during the project, DNR will stop proposed IHA notice, DNR is required to support or surround the haul-out area. removal activities and consult with initiate soft-starts at the onset of pile This activity will only require a battery NMFS. However, as described in the removal if the hammer has the powered drill, is expected to take 2 proposed IHA notice, based on previous capability to do so. days, and could also result in flushing scientific disturbance studies at NRCA, the seals from the haulout. Crew will be extreme reactions are not anticipated. Description of Marine Mammals in the required to complete this activity during Comment 2: The Commission Area of the Specified Activity the days when they are already working recommended that NMFS require the Harbor seals are the only marine within 100 yards (91 m) of the haulout, applicant to measure sound pressure mammal found within the action area.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67953

Harbor seals within the Woodard Bay more than 850 yards (777 m) from the concludes conservatively that vibratory NRCA belong to the Washington Inland closest haulout area. Work here is extraction will not result in sound levels Waters stock, which was estimated expected to take a maximum of 10 days near or above 190 dB re: 1 microPa. around 14,612 individuals in 2003 to complete. Because of the distance Therefore, injury will not occur, though (NMFS, 2003). Although the stock from the haul-outs, the WA DNR noise from vibratory extraction will assessment report for this stock has not anticipates structure removal at the likely exceed 120 dB re: 1 microPa near been updated since 2003, based on Woodard Bay trestle will not disturb the the source and may induce responses trends of other harbor seal stocks, this seals. As such, 10 out of the 40 work in-water such as avoidance or alteration is likely an underestimate. Based on the days are not expected to result in harbor of behavioral states at time of exposure. analyses of Jeffries et al. (2003) and seal harassment. There are limited data available on Brown et al. (2005), both the Though disturbance of harbor seals is the effects of non-pulse noise on Washington and Oregon coastal harbor expected to occur primarily through pinnipeds in-water; however, field and seal stock have likely reached carrying physical presence (i.e., crew and vessel captive studies to date collectively capacity and are no longer increasing. presence in vicinity of harbor seals), suggest that pinnipeds do not strongly Harbor seals are not listed as depleted hammer operations may disturb seals react to exposures between 90–140 dB under the MMPA or as endangered or in-water. NMFS’ general in-water re: 1 microPa; no data exist from threatened under the ESA. They are harassment thresholds for pinnipeds exposures at higher levels (Southall et considered the most abundant resident exposed to non-pulse noise, such as al., 2007). Jacobs and Terhune (2002) pinniped species in Puget Sound (Lance those produced by vibratory pile observed wild harbor seal reactions to and Jeffries, 2009). extraction, are 190 dB rms re: 1 microPa high frequency acoustic harassment The harbor seal population within the as the potential onset of Level A devices (ADH) around nine sites. Seals NRCA is considered one of the healthier (injurious) harassment and 120 dB rms came within 44 m of the active ADH ones in southern Puget Sound. Seal re: 1 microPa as the potential onset of and failed to demonstrate any numbers have been monitored at the site Level B (behavioral) harassment. These behavioral response when received since 1977, when there were less than levels are considered precautionary and SPLs were estimated at 120–130 dB re: 50 seals. In 1996, the highest count year, NMFS is currently revising these 1 microPa. In a captive study (Kastelein, there were 600 seals. The average thresholds to better reflect the most 2006), a group of seals were collectively maximum annual count between 1977 recent scientific data. subjected to data collection and and 2008 was 315 seals with 410 In general, there is a paucity of data communication network (ACME) non- counted in August of 2008 (Buettner et on airborne and underwater noise levels pulse sounds at 8–16 kHz. Exposures al., 2008). Seal numbers peak during the associated with pile extraction, and between 80–107 dB re: 1 microPa did pupping season and decline in the there is no known information on sound not induce strong behavioral responses; winter (when work will be conducted). levels produced by vibratory extraction however, a single observation at 100– A complete description of harbor seal of derelict timber piles (as opposed to 110 dB re: 1 microPa indicated an behavior and habitat use within the steel piles used temporarily). In avoidance response at this level. The NRCA can be found in the proposed addition, there is little data on the group returned to baseline conditions IHA notice for this action (75 FR 48941; vibratory driving of timber piles, shortly following exposure. Southall et August 12, 2010). primarily because it is a seldom-used al. (2007) notes contextual differences technique. Though it is reasonable to between these two studies noting that Effects on Marine Mammals assume that vibratory extraction of the captive animals were not reinforced Past disturbance observations at timber piles would be somewhat quieter with food for remaining in the noise Woodard Bay NRCA have shown that than vibratory driving of timber piles of fields, whereas free-ranging subjects seal harassment occurs from non- the same size, NMFS will not make this may have been more tolerant of motorized boats (e.g., recreational assumption in the absence of data. The exposures because of motivation to kayaks and canoes), motorized vessels California Department of Transportation return to a safe location or approach (e.g., fishing boats), and people walking (Caltrans) has published data showing enclosures holding prey items. Recall by the haulout (Calambokidis et al., that vibratory pile driving of 12–24 inch that the hammer would only operate for 1991; Buettner et al., 2008). Results of steel piles typically results in sound approximately 1 min to break the pile these studies are described in the pressure levels (SPLs) around 155–165 free from the substrate, after which the proposed IHA notice for this action. dB re: 1 microPa (root mean square) ten hammer would stop and a crane would Based on these studies, NMFS meters from the source (Caltrans, 2007). remove the pile from the water. anticipates that the presence of crew Driving of steel piles is typically Therefore, seals will not be exposed to and use of a vibratory hammer will considered to produce higher SPLs than extended in-water noise. result in behavioral harassment, driving timber piles. As such, NMFS primarily flushing off log booms, anticipates that in-water source levels Hearing Impairment avoiding the area, or similar short-term for vibratory driving of timber piles Temporary or permanent hearing behavioral disturbance. would not exceed 165 dB (the maximum impairment is a possibility when marine The portion of the Chapman Bay Pier source SPL for driving 12–24 inch steel mammals are exposed to very loud that will be removed is more than 100 piles). Considering that (a) vibratory sounds. Hearing impairment is yards (91 m) from the closest haul-out driving of 12–24 inch timber piles measured in two forms: temporary area. This activity is expected to take a would not produce SPLs in excess of threshold shift (TTS) and permanent maximum of 10 days and, although does 165 dB; (b) vibratory extraction may threshold shift (PTS). PTS is considered not involve vibratory extraction, has the produce lower SPLs than vibratory injurious whereas TTS is not as it is potential to result in behavioral driving, and would not produce higher temporary and hearing is fully harassment due to the pier’s proximity SPLs; and (c) the piles to be extracted recoverable. There are no empirical data to the haulout. In contrast, the Woodard are approximately 12 inches in diameter for onset of PTS in any marine mammal; Bay trestle is located on the other side (the low end of the size range that therefore, PTS-onset must be estimated of a peninsula that separates Woodard produced the 165 dB estimate for from TTS-onset measurements and from and Chapman Bays and is a distance of vibratory driving of timber piles), NMFS the rate of TTS growth with increasing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

exposure levels above the level eliciting vibratory hammers produce low The DNR has proposed mitigation TTS-onset. PTS is presumed to be likely frequency sounds, towards the lower measures designed to minimize if the hearing threshold is reduced by end of seal hearing capabilities and disturbance to harbor seals within the ≥40 dB (i.e., 40 dB of TTS). Due to the therefore they must be louder in order action area in consideration of timing, low source levels produced by vibratory to be heard. For these reasons, NMFS location, and equipment use. Foremost, extraction and short duration of does not anticipate TTS will be pile and structure removal will only vibration (1 min), marine mammals will induced. occur between November and February, not be exposed to levels that could elicit In summary, it is anticipated that well outside harbor seal pupping and PTS; therefore, it will not be discussed seals will be initially disturbed by crew molting seasons. Therefore, no impacts further. and vessels associated with the habitat from the specified activity during these sensitive time periods will occur. The Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) restoration project; however, given the short duration and low energy of DNR will approach the action area TTS is the mildest form of hearing vibratory extraction, PTS will not occur slowly to alert seals to their presence impairment that can occur during and TTS is not likely. Those animals from a distance and will begin pulling exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). hauled out on the log booms will likely piles at the farthest location from the log While experiencing TTS, the hearing flush into the water. To avoid inducing booms used as harbor seal haulout threshold rises and a sound must be strong reactions, the DNR will conduct areas. Pilings directly associated with louder in order to be heard. TTS can last activities such that the piles farthest harbor seal haulouts (i.e., those within from minutes or hours to, in cases of from the hauled out seals will be 30 yards (27 m) of the booms) will not strong TTS, days. For sound exposures removed first; thereby avoiding a be removed. The contractor will be at or somewhat above the TTS-onset sudden disturbance and allowing seals required to survey the operational area threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers time to acclimate to human activity. The for seals before initiating activities and rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. DNR will also not remove piles within to wait until the seals are at a sufficient Few data on sound levels and durations 30 yards (27 m) of haulouts, avoiding distance (i.e., 50 ft (15 m)) from the necessary to elicit mild TTS have been activity so as to minimize the risk of obtained for marine mammals. Southall extreme close approaches. Throughout the day, seals are expected to become direct injury from the piling or structure et al. (2007) considers a 6 dB TTS (i.e., breaking free or from equipment. The baseline thresholds are elevated by 6 accustomed to crew presence of construction activities, as seen in DNR will also require the contractor to dB) sufficient to be recognized as an initiate a vibratory hammer ‘‘soft start’’ unequivocal deviation and thus a previous disturbance studies within the Woodard Bay NRCA and other harbor at the beginning of each work day. The sufficient definition of TTS-onset. ‘‘ ’’ seal populations. For these reasons, soft-start method includes a reduced Because it is non-injurious, NMFS energy vibration from the hammer for harbor seals are not expected to considers TTS as Level B harassment the first 15 seconds and then a one abandon the haulout or demonstrate that is mediated by physiological effects minute waiting period. This method extreme behaviors in response to crew on the auditory system; however, NMFS will be repeated twice before and habitat restoration activities. does not consider onset TTS to be the commencing with regular energy lowest level at which Level B Anticipated Effects on Habitat operations. Finally, the vibratory harassment may occur. hammer power pack will be outfitted Harbor seals within the action area are Marine mammal habitat will be with a muffler to reduce in-air noise considered resident and may therefore temporarily ensonified by low sound levels. be continually exposed to habitat levels resulting from habitat restoration NMFS has carefully evaluated the restoration activities. Sound exposures effort. The piles designated to be applicant’s proposed mitigation that elicit TTS in pinnipeds underwater removed have been treated with measures in the context of ensuring that have been measured in harbor seals, creosote, a wood preservative that is NMFS prescribes the means of effecting California sea lions, and northern toxic to the environment. Removing the least practicable adverse impact on elephant seals for broadband or these piles will have beneficial impacts the affected marine mammal species octaveband (OBN) non-pulse noise to the NRCA, including marine mammal and stocks and their habitat. Our ranging from approximately 12 minutes habitat, by preventing the leaching of evaluation of potential measures to several hours (Kastak and creosote chemicals, including included consideration of the following Schusterman, 1996; Finneran et al., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, into factors in relation to one another: (1) 2003; Kastak et al., 1999; Kastak et al., the marine environment. No log booms The manner in which, and the degree to 2005). Collectively, Kastak et al. (2005) will be removed; therefore, no impacts which, the successful implementation of analyzed these data to indicate that in to the physical availability of haulout the measure is expected to minimize the harbor seal, a TTS of ca. 6 dB structure will occur. adverse impacts to marine mammals; (2) occurred with 25 minute exposure to 2.5 Mitigation the proven or likely efficacy of the kHz OBN with SPL of 152 dB re:1 specific measure to minimize adverse microPa; the California sea lion showed In order to issue an incidental take impacts as planned; and (3) the TTS-onset at 174 dB re: 1 microPa (as authorization (ITA) under Section practicability of the measure for summarized in Southall et al., 2007). 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must applicant implementation, including Source levels emitted by vibratory pile set forth the permissible methods of consideration of personnel safety, and extraction are low (likely below 155 dB) taking pursuant to such activity, and practicality of implementation. and would only occur for approximately other means of effecting the least Based on our evaluation of the 1 minute before stopping. The studies practicable adverse impact on such applicant’s proposed measures, as well referenced above indicate that sound species or stock and its habitat, paying as other measures considered by NMFS pressure levels at similar levels must be particular attention to rookeries, mating or recommended by the public, NMFS continuous to induce TTS. Furthermore, grounds, and areas of similar has preliminarily determined that the the studies above exposed animals to significance, and on the availability of proposed mitigation measures provide sounds with frequency ranges closer to such species or stock for taking for the means of effecting the least their peak hearing frequency whereas certain subsistence uses. practicable adverse impacts on marine

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67955

mammals species or stocks and their reactions to vibratory extraction. A harassment as NMFS has indicated that habitat, paying particular attention to description of the disturbance source, people at Woodard Bay should remain rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of the proximity in meters of the 100 yards from the seals to prevent similar significance. disturbance source, and reactions will disturbance. Therefore, the DNR is be noted. Within 90 days of the estimating only nine days of pile Monitoring and Reporting completion of the project, DNR will removal will result in harassment to In order to issue an ITA for an submit a monitoring report to NMFS seals within the action area. Seals may activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the that will include a summary of findings be disturbed due to crew presence of MMPA states that NMFS must set forth and copies of field data sheets and pile removal operations. Given the mean ‘‘requirements pertaining to the relevant daily logs from the contractor. of 171 animals on a haulout at any given monitoring and reporting of such day, the DNR is authorized to take, by Estimated Take by Incidental taking’’. The MMPA implementing Level B harassment, 1539 seals (171 × 9) Harassment regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) during the habitat restoration project indicate that requests for IHAs must Except with respect to certain with the inference that the individual include the suggested means of activities not pertinent here, the MMPA number of seals harassed will be low accomplishing the necessary monitoring defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: but may be taken multiple times. This and reporting that will result in any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance take estimation reflects a change in increased knowledge of the species and which (i) has the potential to injure a marine methodology from that presented in the of the level of taking or impacts on mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild Federal Register notice of proposed populations of marine mammals that are [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential authorization (75 FR 48941, August 12, expected to be present. to disturb a marine mammal or marine 2010). In that document, the DNR Harbor seal research has been mammal stock in the wild by causing proposed to use the more conservative disruption of behavioral patterns, including, conducted at Woodard Bay since the methodology for take estimation (i.e., 1970’s and has included seal ecology, but not limited to, migration, breathing, × nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 275 9); however, for reasons discussed population dynamics and disturbance [Level B harassment]. previously in this section, the DNR has behavior (Newby, 1970; Calambokidis et determined a more moderate approach During previous surveys, seal counts al., 1991; Buettner et al., 2008; to take estimation is appropriate. Lambourn et al., 2009). The DNR’s for the month of October, the last month monitoring plan adheres to protocols (and closest to the months when the Negligible Impact and Small Numbers already established for Woodard Bay project will be carried out) that data is Analysis and Determination research and, in coordination with recorded each year, averaged 171 and NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ NMFS, has been tailored for the ranged between 79 and 275 individuals in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘ * * * an impact specified activity. Monitoring of both from 2006 to 2009 (Lambourn, 2010). resulting from the specified activity that haul-outs will be performed by at least Although there is no data for the months cannot be reasonably expected to, and is one NMFS approved protected species from November through February, when not reasonably likely to, adversely affect observer (PSOs), who will monitor the the project is scheduled to take place, the species or stock through effects on haulouts the first two days of the the number of seals is expected to annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ project, when the contractors are decline during these months, as In making a negligible impact mobilizing to a new location, during compared with the summer/fall determination, NMFS considers a two days of every week when activities pupping season. Additionally, the seal number of factors associated with the are occurring within 100 yards of the counts for the month of October, from proposed action and affected species haul out area, during five of the days of 2006–2009, are an aggregate of both and stocks including, but not limited to, work on the Chapman Bay Pier, and for haul-out sites from which seals may be the number of anticipated mortalities; at least six other days during the 40 day disturbed. Given that the seals are likely number and nature of anticipated work period to be decided when the to be relatively evenly split between the injuries; number, nature, intensity, and project schedule is provided by the two haul-out sites, only a portion of the duration of Level B harassment; and contractor. Therefore, there will be at seals present on any given day would be temporal and spatial scale of the least 15 days where a designated subject to Level B harassment (i.e., those proposed action with respect to the observer will be on site over the course seals present at the haul-out closest to ecology and life history of potentially of 40 days of work. The PSO will be the area where work is occurring). affected marine mammals (e.g., will onsite prior to crew and vessel arrival to Therefore, the DNR rejected the use of harassment occur on prime foraging determine the number of seals present the most conservative approach to take grounds, during critical reproductive pre-disturbance. The PSO will maintain estimation (using the maximum of 275 times, etc.). a low profile during this time to seals), and used a more moderate For reasons described previously in minimize disturbance from monitoring. approach (using the mean number of this document, there is no potential for Observational data collected will 171 seals). Using this moderate serious injury or mortality from the include monitoring dates, times and approach, the DNR considers that 171 specified activity. Further, although the conditions, estimated number of take, seals could potentially be affected by potential for injury could be which will be recorded as number of the project per day. Woodard Bay trestle discountable to begin with, mitigation seals flushed from the haulout, and type removal operations are not expected to and monitoring measures will ensure of activity occurring at time of harass marine mammals as the trestle is seals are not physically injured from disturbance. This information will be located approximately 850 yards (777 equipment (auditory injury is not determined by recording the number of m) from the closest haulout. Therefore, possible due to low source levels and seals using the haul-out on each days spent removing the trestle have intermittent hammer operation). monitoring day prior to the start of been removed from take calculations. In However, it is likely seals will react to restoration activities for that day, addition, the DNR has proposed that the presence of crew and equipment and recording the number of seals that flush removal of pilings located at greater vibratory extraction noise (e.g., by from the haulout or, for animals already than 100 yards (91 m) from the harbor flushing, avoiding the area). The DNR in the water, display adverse behavioral seal haulout will not result in will not conduct habitat restoration

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

operations during the pupping and Impact on Availability of Affected representation at the conclusion of the molting season; therefore, no pups will Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses hearing on October 8, 2010. Extension of Time: The Board now be affected by the proposed action and There are no relevant subsistence uses extends the period of time for which the no impacts to any seals will occur as a of marine mammals implicated by this hearing record will remain open an result of the specified activity during action. Endangered Species Act (ESA); additional sixty (60) days until January these sensitive time periods. Mitigation thus, there will not be an unmitigable 6, 2011. The Board has become aware of measures (e.g. beginning work at the adverse impact on the availability for information which indicates that the farthest distance to the haulout as taking marine mammals for subsistence public interest will be best served by possible, use of a muffler pack, etc.) will uses. extending the deadline for submission minimize onset of sudden, acute No marine mammals listed under the of materials into the hearing record. The reactions and overall disturbance during ESA have the potential to be taken Board will consider any such additional project activities. In addition, it is not incidental to the proposed action as material in the course of evaluating its likely that seals at multiple haulouts none occur within the action area. will be disturbed simultaneously as response to information collected at the Therefore, Section 7 consultation under hearing. work, for example, may affect the the ESA is not required. southern haulout but not the northern Contact Person for More Information: Brian Grosner, General Manager, haulout based on location of the crew National Environmental Policy Act Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and barge. Although seals may initially (NEPA) 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, flush into the water, based on previous In compliance with the National Washington, DC 20004–2901, (800) 788– disturbance studies and maintenance Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 4016. This is a toll-free number. activity at the haulouts, the DNR U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by expects seals will quickly habituate to the regulations published by the Dated: November 1, 2010. piling and structure removal operations. Council on Environmental Quality (40 Peter S. Winokur, For these reasons no long term or CFR parts 1500–1508), and NOAA Chairman. permanent abandonment of the haulout Administrative Order 216–6, NMFS has [FR Doc. 2010–27900 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] is anticipated. prepared an Environmental Assessment BILLING CODE 3670–01–P The seals at Woodard Bay are (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and considered resident and make small cumulative effects to pinnipeds and daily movements to forage; however, other applicable environmental DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE exactly how far they transit is unknown. resources resulting from issuance of the Department of the Navy The mean count of the localized seal IHA. On October 27, 2010, NMFS issued population from 1977–2008 was 315 a Finding of No Significant Impact on the EA. Meeting of the Chief of Naval animals during the pupping season with Operations Executive Panel a maximum of 400 individuals counted Dated: October 29, 2010. in 2008 during this time. However, as James H. Lecky, AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. described above, these numbers drop Director, Office of Protected Resources, ACTION: Notice of Partially Closed over the late fall and winter. The DNR National Marine Fisheries Service. Meeting. has scheduled the project to occur from [FR Doc. 2010–27883 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: The Chief of Naval Operations November–February, a time outside of BILLING CODE 3510–22–P (CNO) Executive Panel will report on sensitive reproductive periods and the findings and recommendations of during a time seal numbers are lowest. the Latin America and the Caribbean, The DNR is authorized to take DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 2010 Subcommittee study. The meeting approximately 171 seals multiple times. SAFETY BOARD will consist of open and closed The number of individual seals harassed discussions. Closed discussions will may be considered small (10.5%) when Extension of Time To Supplement include national and naval intelligence compared to the Inland Washington Hearing Record analysis, as well as consider major stock size (n=14,612). The fact that only AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities challenges which the United States will temporary Level B, or behavioral, Safety Board. face over the next five years and harassment would occur, and that the implications of the regional security activity has been scheduled outside of ACTION: Extension of time to supplement hearing record. environment on the prospective role of sensitive reproduction periods, ensures U.S. naval forces. Open discussions will that the least practicable adverse impact SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear include the political, social and will occur. Facilities Safety Board (Board) economic environment of Latin America Based on the analysis contained published a document in the Federal and the Caribbean, focusing on crime herein of the likely effects of the Register of July 26, 2010, (75 FR 43495), (particularly narcotics trafficking), specified activity on marine mammals as amended, (75 FR 56080), concerning regional ethnic conflicts, and analysis of and their habitat, and taking into notice of a public hearing and meeting regional democratic processes. The consideration the implementation of the on October 7 and 8, 2010, with regard discussion will concentrate on Central mitigation and monitoring measures, to the safety-related aspects of the and South America and the Caribbean; NMFS finds that piling and structure design and construction of the considering issues also effecting Mexico removal associated with the WA DNR’s Department of Energy’s Waste as appropriate. habitat restoration project will result in Treatment and Immobilization Plant at DATES: The meeting will be held on the incidental take of small numbers of the Hanford Site. The Board stated in December 14, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 11:30 marine mammals by Level B harassment that notice that the Board would hold a.m. The session from 9 a.m.–10 a.m. only, and that the total taking from the the hearing record open until November will be open to the public; the session specified activity will have a negligible 7, 2010, for the receipt of additional from 10 a.m.–11:30 a.m. will be closed impact on the affected species or stocks. materials. The Board made the same to the public.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67957

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in SUMMARY: The Department of Education Dated: October 29, 2010. the Boardroom at CNA, 4825 Mark (the Department), in accordance with Darrin A. King, Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311– the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Director, Information Collection Clearance 1846. (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: provides the general public and Federal Commander Eric Taylor, CNO Executive agencies with an opportunity to Office of Planning, Evaluation and Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, comment on proposed and continuing Policy Development collections of information. This helps Alexandria, VA 22311–1846, 703–681– Type of Review: New. 4909. the Department assess the impact of its Title of Collection: Equitable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant information collection requirements and Distribution of Effective Teachers: State to the provisions of the Federal minimize the reporting burden on the and Local Responses to Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended public and helps the public understand Initiatives. (5 U.S.C. App.), these matters constitute the Department’s information collection OMB Control Number: 1875–NEW. classified information that is requirements and provide the requested Agency Form Number(s): N/A. specifically authorized by Executive data in the desired format. The Director, Frequency of Responses: Once. Order to be kept secret in the interest of Information Collection Clearance Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal national defense and are, in fact, Division, Regulatory Information Government, State Educational properly classified pursuant to such Management Services, Office of Agencies or Local Educational Agencies. Executive Order. Accordingly, the Management, invites comments on the Total Estimated Number of Annual Secretary of the Navy has determined in proposed information collection Responses: 42. Total Estimated Number of Annual writing that the public interest requires requests as required by the Paperwork that the portion of this meeting from Burden Hours: 126. Reduction Act of 1995. Abstract: The most recent 10 a.m.–11:30 a.m. be closed to the reauthorization of the Elementary and public because they will be concerned DATES: Interested persons are invited to Secondary Education Act in 2002 with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) submit comments on or before January required that States provide assurances of title 5, United States Code. 3, 2011. and develop plans to ‘‘ensure that poor Individuals or interested groups may ADDRESSES: Comments regarding burden submit written statements for and minority children are not taught at and/or the collection activity higher rates than other children by consideration by the CNO Executive requirements should be electronically Panel at any time or in response to the inexperienced, unqualified, or out of mailed to [email protected] or field teachers’’ (Section 1111(b)(8)(C)). agenda of a scheduled meeting. All mailed to U.S. Department of Education, requests must be submitted to the In 2009, American Recovery and 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Designated Federal Officer at the Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requirements Washington, DC 20202–4537. Please address detailed below. reinforced the focus on equitable If the written statement is in response note that written comments received in distribution of teachers by requiring to the agenda mentioned in this meeting response to this notice will be States applying for education stimulus notice then the statement, if it is to be considered public records. funds to provide updated assurances and to publicize their most recent considered by the Panel for this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section ‘‘equity plans.’’ ARRA also establishes meeting, must be received at least five 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of days prior to the meeting in question. competitive grants to help States build 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires their pool of effective teachers and The Designated Federal Officer will that Federal agencies provide interested review all timely submissions with the address inequities in the distribution of parties an early opportunity to comment teachers. In addition to their focus on CNO Executive Panel Chairperson, and on information collection requests. The ensure they are provided to members of the equitable distribution of teacher Director, Information Collection the CNO Executive Panel before the quality, Federal programs also have Clearance Division, Regulatory meeting that is the subject of this notice. been promoting shifts in how teacher To contact the Designated Federal Information Management Services, quality is measured, away from teacher Officer, write to Executive Director, Office of Management, publishes this qualifications and toward measures of CNO Executive Panel (N00K), 4825 notice containing proposed information instructional practice and effectiveness Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, collection requests at the beginning of at raising student achievement. Federal Alexandria, VA 22311–1846. the Departmental review of the programs such as the Teacher Incentive information collection. The Department Fund and Race to the Top have Dated: October 28, 2010. of Education is especially interested in provided incentives for States and D.J. Werner, public comment addressing the districts to move in this direction, Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge following issues: (1) Is this collection including funds to support some of the Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal necessary to the proper functions of the technical aspects of development. Register Liaison Officer. Federal policymakers need to know [FR Doc. 2010–27928 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; whether the policies and programs they BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P sponsor under these laws contribute to (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; teacher quality for disadvantaged (4) how might the Department enhance students. Hence, the U.S. Department of the quality, utility, and clarity of the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Education requires a study documenting information to be collected; and (5) how the State and local actions to (a) develop Notice of Proposed Information might the Department minimize the new measures of teacher quality, Collection Requests burden of this collection on the (b) analyze the distribution of teacher respondents, including through the use AGENCY: Department of Education. quality, and (c) develop and implement of information technology. plans to ensure teacher quality for ACTION: Comment Request. disadvantaged students. To inform

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Federal policymakers, the study will SUMMARY: This notice announces an Tentative Agenda: The meeting is examine the implementation of these open meeting of the Blue Ribbon expected to start at 8:30 a.m. on activities with attention to Commission on America’s Nuclear Monday, November 15, 2010. The implementation challenges, the role of Future (the Commission). The schedule for the 15th will include State and local context, and the roles of Commission was organized pursuant to presentations and statements to the the Federal programs designed to foster the Federal Advisory Committee Act Commission. The meeting will resume these activities. (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 16, The planned data collection will serve This notice is provided in accordance 2010, with presentations and statements four objectives: with the Act. to the Commission and Commission This notice is being published less 1. To examine how States and discussions lasting until about 11 a.m. districts analyze the distribution of that 15 days from the date of the meeting due to logistical circumstances The meeting will conclude with public teacher quality, plan actions to address statements and will end at inequities, and monitor progress. and the inability to delay and approximately 12:15 p.m. 2. To examine how States and reschedule the meeting in a timely districts are changing their measures of fashion. In addition, the dates for this Public Participation: Individuals and teacher quality, and to understand their meeting and the location, Washington, representatives of organizations who experiences in doing so. DC, were made public during the would like to offer comments and 3. To examine State and local actions September 2010 open meeting of the suggestions may do so at the end of the to improve teacher quality for Commission and posted on http:// public session on Tuesday, November disadvantaged students (i.e., students in www.brc.gov. 16, 2010. Approximately 1 hour will be high-poverty or high-minority schools). DATES: Monday, November 15, 2010, reserved for public comments from 4. To describe the perceived 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Time allotted contributions of Federal programs to 16, 2010, 8:30 a.m.–12:15 p.m. per speaker will depend on the number State and local actions aimed at ADDRESSES: Washington Marriott Metro who wish to speak but will not exceed improving the quality of teachers for Center, 775 12th Street, NW., 5 minutes. The Designated Federal disadvantaged students, and how State Washington, DC 20005, Telephone: Officer is empowered to conduct the and local contexts mediate these (202) 737–2200. meeting in a fashion that will facilitate contributions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the orderly conduct of business. Those To address these objectives, our Timothy A. Frazier, Designated Federal wishing to speak should register to do design includes telephone interviews Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, so beginning at 8 a.m. on November 16, with State education agencies and local 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 2010, at the Washington Marriott at education agencies. Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) Metro Center. Registration to speak will Requests for copies of the proposed 586–4243 or facsimile (202) 586–0544; close at 10 a.m., November 16, 2010. information collection request may be e-mail Those not able to attend the meeting accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, [email protected]. by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending Additional information will be available or have insufficient time to address the Collections’’ link and by clicking on link at http://www.brc.gov. subcommittee are invited to send a number 4426. When you access the written statement to Timothy A. Frazier, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: information collection, click on Background: The President directed U.S. Department of Energy 1000 ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. that the Commission be established to Independence Avenue, SW., Written requests for information should conduct a comprehensive review of Washington DC 20585, e-mail to be addressed to U.S. Department of policies for managing the back end of [email protected], or Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., the nuclear fuel cycle. The Commission post comments on the Commission Web LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. will provide advice and make site at http://www.brc.gov. Requests may also be electronically recommendations on issues including Additionally, the meeting will be mailed to [email protected] or faxed alternatives for the storage, processing, available via live video webcast. The to 202–401–0920. Please specify the and disposal of civilian and defense complete title of the information link will be available at http:// spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. www.brc.gov. collection and OMB Control Number The Commission is scheduled to submit when making your request. a draft report to the Secretary of Energy Minutes: The minutes of the meeting Individuals who use a in July 2011 and a final report in will be available at http://www.brc.gov telecommunications device for the deaf January 2012. or by contacting Mr. Frazier. He may be (TDD) may call the Federal Information This is the fifth full Commission reached at the postal address or e-mail Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– meeting. Previous meetings were held in address above. 8339. March, May, July, and September 2010. Issued in Washington, DC on October 29, [FR Doc. 2010–27898 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Webcasts of the previous meetings along 2010. BILLING CODE 4000–01–P with meeting transcripts and LaTanya R. Butler, presentation are available at http:// www.brc.gov. Acting Deputy Committee Management Purpose of the Meeting: One purpose Officer. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY of this meeting is to better understand [FR Doc. 2010–27902 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] the fuel cycle policies that have been BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Blue Ribbon Commission on established by other leading nuclear America’s Nuclear Future energy nations. The Commission will AGENCY: Office of Nuclear Energy, hear from a series of speakers who can Department of Energy. provide insights on the views of State and Tribal governments and members of ACTION: Notice of open meeting. the public.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67959

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY free at 1–866–208–3676, of for TTY, may affect the responsibilities of a (202) 502–8659. A copy is also available particular resource agency, they must Federal Energy Regulatory for inspection and reproduction at the also serve a copy of the document on Commission address in paragraph (h). that resource agency. [Project No. 13871–000] Register online at http:// o. Any qualified applicant desiring to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ file a competing application must Wagon Wheel Associates; Notice of esubscription.asp to be notified via submit to the Commission, on or before Application Tendered for Filing With e-mail of new filing and issuances the specified intervention deadline date, the Commission, Notice of Application related to this or other pending projects. a competing development application, Accepted for Filing, Ready for For assistance, contact FERC Online or a notice of intent to file such an Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Support. application. Submission of a timely Motions To Intervene and Protests, l. This application has been accepted notice of intent allows an interested Comments, Final Terms and for filing and is now ready for person to file the competing Conditions, Recommendations, and environmental analysis. development application no later than m. Cooperating Agencies: Federal, Prescriptions 120 days after the specified intervention State, local, and Tribal agencies with deadline date. Applications for October 28, 2010. jurisdiction and/or special expertise preliminary permits will not be Take notice that the following with respect to environmental issues accepted in response to this notice. that wish to cooperate in the hydroelectric application has been filed A notice of intent must specify the preparation of the environmental with the Commission and is available exact name, business address, and document should follow the for public inspection. telephone number of the prospective instructions in item (n) below. a. Type of Filing: Exemption From applicant, and must include an Licensing. n. Deadline for Filing Motions To Intervene and Comments: Due to the unequivocal statement of intent to b. Project No.: P–13871–000. submit a development application. A c. Dated Filed: October 18, 2010. small size and particular location of this notice of intent must be served on the d. Submitted by: Wagon Wheel project as well as the applicant’s close applicant(s) named in this public notice. Associates (WWA). coordination with the Federal and State e. Name of Project: Humphreys agencies in the preparation of the Anyone may submit comments, a Hydroelectric Project. application, the 60-day timeframe in 18 protest, or a motion to intervene in f. Project Description: WWA is CFR 4.34(b) for filing motions to accordance with the requirements of proposing to install a penstock and intervene and protests, comments, terms Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR powerhouse below the existing Lake and conditions, recommendations, and 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the Humphreys to house a 310 kilowatt prescriptions is shortened. Instead, appropriate action to take, the hydroelectric turbine, generator, and motions to intervene and protests, Commission will consider all protests or appurtenant facilities. Electricity comments, terms and conditions, other comments filed, but only those generated by the facility will be sold to recommendations, and prescriptions who file a motion to intervene in the San Luis Valley Rural Electric will be due 30 days from the issuance accordance with the Commission’s Cooperative. This project will be able to date of this notice. All reply comments Rules may become a party to the produce approximately 1,200 megawatt must be filed with the Commission proceeding. Any comments, protests, or hours of renewable energy annually within 45 days from the date of this motions to intervene must be received which could meet the annual electricity notice. on or before the specified comment date needs of approximately 240 households. All documents may be filed for the particular application. g. Location: The proposed project electronically via the Internet. See 18 All filings must (1) bear in all capital would be located on Goose Creek (in the CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the letters the title ‘‘PROTEST’’, ‘‘MOTION Rio Grande River basin) in Mineral instructions on the Commission’s Web TO INTERVENE’’, ‘‘NOTICE OF INTENT County, Colorado. The proposed project site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,’’ would not occupy any Federal lands. ferconline.asp) under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. ‘‘COMPETING APPLICATION,’’ h. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utilities For a simpler method of submitting text ‘‘COMMENTS,’’ or ‘‘REPLY Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 only comments, click on ‘‘Quick COMMENTS,’’ (2) set forth in the U.S.C. 2705, 2708. Comment’’. For assistance, please heading the name of the applicant and i. Applicant Contact: Ms. Ruth Brown, contact FERC Online Support at the project number of the application to Wagon Wheel Associates, 7.5 Goose [email protected]; call toll- which the filing responds; (3) furnish Creek Road, South Fork, CO 81154; free at (866) 208–3676; or, for TTY, the name, address, and telephone (970) 925–6071; contact (202) 502–8659. Although the number of the person protesting or [email protected]. Commission strongly encourages intervening; and (4) otherwise comply j. FERC Contact: Carolyn Templeton electronic filing, documents may also be with the requirements of 18 CFR at (202) 502–8785; or e-mail at paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies [email protected]. original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. may obtain copies of the application k. A copy of the license application is Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy directly from the applicant. A copy of available for review at the Commission Regulatory Commission, 888 First any protest or motion to intervene must in the Public Reference Room or may be Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. be served upon each representative of viewed on the Commission’s Web site The Commission’s Rules of Practice the applicant specified in the particular (http://www.ferc.gov), using the require all intervenors filing documents application. A copy of all other filings ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket with the Commission to serve a copy of in reference to this application must be number, excluding the last three digits that document on each person on the accompanied by proof of service on all in the docket number field to access the official service list for the project. persons listed in the service list document (P–13871). For assistance, Further, if an intervenor files comments prepared by the Commission in this contact FERC Online Support at or documents with the Commission proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR [email protected] or toll relating to the merits of an issue that 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

p. With this notice, we are initiating serve motions to intervene or protests serve motions to intervene or protests consultation with the COLORADO on persons other than the Applicant. on persons other than the Applicant. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION The Commission encourages The Commission encourages OFFICER (SHPO), as required by 106, electronic submission of protests and electronic submission of protests and National Historic Preservation Act, and interventions in lieu of paper using the interventions in lieu of paper using the the regulations of the Advisory Council ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR pt. Persons unable to file electronically Persons unable to file electronically 800.4. should submit an original and 14 copies should submit an original and 14 copies q. Procedural Schedule and Final of the protest or intervention to the of the protest or intervention to the Amendments: We intend to accept the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, consultation that has occurred on this 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC project during the pre-filing period as 20426. 20426. satisfying our requirements for the This filing is accessible on-line at This filing is accessible on-line at standard 3-stage consultation process http://www.ferc.gov, using the http://www.ferc.gov, using the under 18 CFR 4.38 and for National ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Environmental Policy Act scoping. review in the Commission’s Public review in the Commission’s Public Based on a review of the application, Reference Room in Washington, DC. Reference Room in Washington, DC. resource agency consultation letters, There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the and comments filed to date, Web site that enables subscribers to Web site that enables subscribers to Commission staff intends to prepare a receive e-mail notification when a receive e-mail notification when a single environmental assessment (EA) document is added to a subscribed document is added to a subscribed for the proposed project. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Kimberly D. Bose, Online service, please e-mail Online service, please e-mail Secretary. [email protected], or call [email protected], or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call [FR Doc. 2010–27792 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. (202) 502–8659. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 15, 2010. on November 5, 2010. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Kimberly D. Bose, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. Federal Energy Regulatory Secretary. [FR Doc. 2010–27794 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Commission [FR Doc. 2010–27793 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P BILLING CODE 6717–01–P [Docket Nos. RM06–16–011]

North American Electric Reliability DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Corporation; Notice of Compliance AGENCY Filing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FRL–9221–1] October 28, 2010. Take notice that on October 25, 2010, [Docket No. EF11–1–000] Notice of Availability of Draft National the North American Electric Reliability Pollutant Discharge Elimination Corporation (NERC), submitted a Southeastern Power Administration; System (NPDES) General Permits for compliance filing in response to the Notice of Filing Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Federal Energy Regulatory Systems (MS4) Commission’s (Commission) Order October 28, 2010. Granting Rehearing for Further Take notice that on October 6, 2010, AGENCY: Environmental Protection Consideration and Scheduling the Southeastern Power Administration, Agency (EPA). 1 Technical Conference, issued on May pursuant to Order No. 714, submitted ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft 13, 2010.1 its Baseline Filing, to be effective NPDES General Permits. Any person desiring to intervene or to October 6, 2010. protest this filing must file in Any person desiring to intervene or to SUMMARY: The Director of the Office of accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of protest this filing must file in Ecosystem Protection, Environmental the Commission’s Rules of Practice and accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Protection Agency-Region 1 (EPA), is Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). the Commission’s Rules of Practice and issuing this Notice of Availability of Protests will be considered by the Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Draft NPDES general permits for Commission in determining the Protests will be considered by the discharges from small MS4s to certain appropriate action to be taken, but will Commission in determining the waters of the Commonwealth of not serve to make protestants parties to appropriate action to be taken, but will Massachusetts. These draft NPDES the proceeding. Any person wishing to not serve to make protestants parties to general permits establish Notice of become a party must file a notice of the proceeding. Any person wishing to Intent (NOI) requirements, prohibitions, intervention or motion to intervene, as become a party must file a notice of and management practices for appropriate. Such notices, motions, or intervention or motion to intervene, as stormwater discharges from small MS4s. protests must be filed on or before the appropriate. Such notices, motions, or EPA is proposing to issue three general comment date. On or before the protests must be filed on or before the permits. Throughout this document the comment date, it is not necessary to comment date. On or before the terms ‘‘this permit’’ and ‘‘the permit’’ will comment date, it is not necessary to refer to all three general permits. 1 Order Granting Rehearing for Further Owner and/or operators of small Consideration and Scheduling Technical 1 Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, FERC MS4s that discharge stormwater will be Conference, 131 FERC ¶61,136 (May 13, 2010). Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,276 (2008). required to submit a NOI to EPA-Region

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67961

1 to be covered by the general permit. Region 1’s Web site at: http:// similar entity, or an Indian Tribe or an Following a review and public notice of www.epa.gov/region1/topics/water/ authorized Indian Tribal organization, the NOI, MS4s will receive a written stormwater.html. or a designated and approved notification from EPA regarding permit Public Hearing Information: management agency under section 208 coverage and authorization to discharge Following the public meeting, a public of the CWA that discharges to waters of under the general permit. The eligibility hearing will be conducted in accordance the United States. requirements are discussed in the draft with 40 CFR 124.12 and will provide (2) Not defined as ‘large’ or ‘medium’ permit. The small MS4 must meet the interested parties with the opportunity municipal separate storm sewer systems eligibility requirements of the permit to provide written and/or oral pursuant to paragraphs (b)(4) or (b)(7) or prior to the submission of the NOI. comments for the official draft permit designated under paragraph (a)(1)(v) of The draft general permit, appendices, record. The public hearing will be held this section [40 CFR 122.26]. and fact sheet are available at: http:// at the following time and location: (3) This term includes systems similar www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/ Thursday–December 2, 2010, Lakeville to separate storm sewer systems in stormwater. Public Library (Large Meeting Room), 4 municipalities such as systems at Precinct Street, Lakeville, MA 02347, military bases, large hospital or prison DATES: The public comment period is complexes, and highways or other from November 4, 2010 to December 30, 11:30 a.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: thoroughfares. The term does not 2010. Interested persons may submit include separate storm sewers in very comments on the draft general permit as Additional information concerning the draft permit may be obtained between discrete areas, such as individual part of the administrative record to the buildings.’’ the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday EPA-Region 1, at the address given For example, an armory located in an through Friday excluding holidays from: below, no later than midnight December urbanized area would not be considered 30, 2010. The general permit shall be Kate Renahan, Office of the Regional a regulated small MS4. effective on the date specified in the Administrator, Environmental The draft general permit sets forth the Federal Register publication of the Protection Agency, 5 Post Office requirements for the small MS4 to Notice of Availability of the final Square—Suite 100, Mail Code: ORA01– ‘‘reduce the discharge of pollutants to general permit. The final general permit 1, Boston, MA 02109–3912; telephone: the maximum extent practicable, will expire five years from the effective 617–918–1491; e-mail: including management practices, date. [email protected]. control techniques, and system, design ADDRESSES: Submit comments by one of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and engineering methods * * *’’ (See the following methods: section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA). • E-mail: [email protected]. Background of Proposed Permit MEP is the statutory standard that • Mail: Kate Renahan, U.S. EPA- As stated previously, the Director of establishes the level of pollutant Region 1, Office of the Regional the Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA- reductions that MS4 operators must Administrator, 5 Post Office Square— Region 1, is proposing to reissue three achieve, but also includes recognition Suite 100, Mail Code—ORA01–1, NPDES general permits for the discharge that other provisions in addition to MEP Boston, MA 02109–3912. of stormwater from small MS4s to may be required under some No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. certain waters within the circumstances. EPA believes The draft permit is based on an Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The implementation of best management administrative record available for three permits are: practices (BMPs) designed to control public review at EPA-Region 1, Office of MAR041000—Systems owned by stormwater runoff from the MS4 is Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office traditional cities and towns. generally the most appropriate approach Square—Suite 100, Boston, MAR042000– Systems owned by state for reducing pollutants to satisfy the Massachusetts 02109–3912. The or Federal entities. MEP standard. Pursuant to 40 CFR following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION MAR04000I—Systems located on 122.44(k), the draft permit requires section sets forth principal facts and the Indian Country Land within the permittees to control stormwater significant factual, legal, and policy Commonwealth of Massachusetts. discharges through BMPs, including questions considered in the The conditions in the draft permit are development and implementation of a development of the draft permit. A established pursuant to Clean Water Act comprehensive stormwater management reasonable fee may be charged for (CWA) section 402(p)(3)(iii) to ensure program (SWMP) as the mechanism to copying requests. that pollutant discharges from small achieve the required pollutant Public Meeting Information: EPA- MS4s are reduced to the maximum reductions. Region 1 will hold a public meeting to extent practicable (MEP), protect water Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of CWA also provide information about the draft quality, and satisfy the appropriate authorizes EPA to include in an MS4 general permit and its requirements. requirements of the CWA. The permit ‘‘such other provisions as [EPA] The public meeting will include a brief regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(16) determine appropriate for control of presentation on the draft general define a small municipal separate storm * * * pollutants.’’ EPA believes that permits and a brief question and answer sewer system as ‘‘* * * all separate this provision forms a basis for session. Written, but not oral, comments storm sewers that are: imposing water quality-based effluent for the official draft permit record will (1) Owned or operated by the United limitations (WQBELs), consistent with be accepted at the public meeting. The States, a State, city, town, borough, the authority in Section 301(b)(1)(C) of public meeting will be held at the county, parish, district, association, or the CWA. See Defenders of Wildlife v. following time and location: Thursday– other public body (created by or Browner. 191 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1999); December 2, 2010, Lakeville Public pursuant to State law) having see also EPA’s preamble to the Phase II Library (Large Meeting Room), jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, regulations, 64 FR 68722, 68753, 68788 4 Precinct Street, Lakeville, MA 02347, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other (Dec. 8, 1999). Accordingly, the draft 10:15 a.m.–11:15 a.m. wastes, including special districts under permits contain the water quality-based The dates and times of any additional State law such as a sewer district, flood effluent limitations, expressed in terms public meetings will be posted on EPA- control district or drainage district, or of BMPs, which EPA determined are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

necessary and appropriate under the final permit. Interim authorization will [a]uthorized under section 304(e) of the CWA. terminate earlier than the 180 days CWA for the control of toxic pollutants EPA-Region 1 issued a final general when a complete and accurate NOI has and hazardous substances from permit to address stormwater discharges been submitted by the small MS4 and ancillary industrial activities; (2) from small MS4s on May 1, 2003. The authorization is either granted or [a]uthorized under section 402(p) of the 2003 general permit required small denied. If a permittee was authorized CWA for the control of stormwater MS4s to develop and implement a under the previous permit and discharges; (3) [n]umeric effluent SWMP designed to control pollutants to submitted a complete and accurate NOI limitations are infeasible; or (4) [t]he the maximum extent practicable and in a timely manner, and notification of practices are reasonable to achieve protect water quality. This draft permit authorization under the final permit has effluent limitations and standards or to not occurred within 180 days of the builds on the requirements of the carry out the purposes and intent of the previous general permit. effective date of the final permit, the CWA.’’ The permit regulates stormwater EPA views the MEP standard in the permittee’s authorization under the CWA as an iterative process. MEP previous permit can be continued discharges using BMPs. Due to the should continually adapt to current beyond 180 days on an interim basis. variability associated with stormwater, conditions and BMP effectiveness. EPA Interim coverage will terminate after EPA believes the use of BMPs is the believes that compliance with the authorization under this general permit, most appropriate method to regulate requirements of this general permit will an alternative permit, or denial of discharges of stormwater from meet the MEP standard. The iterative permit coverage. municipal systems in accordance with process of MEP consists of a EPA—Region 1 will provide an the above referenced regulation. municipality developing a program opportunity for the public to comment The draft permit requires small MS4s consistent with specific permit on each NOI that is submitted. to continue to control stormwater requirements, implementing the Following the public notice, EPA— discharges from the municipal system in Region 1 will either authorize the program, evaluating the effectiveness of a manner designed to reduce the discharge, request additional the BMPs included as part of the discharge of pollutant to the maximum information, or require the small MS4 to program, then revising those parts of the extent practicable and to protect water program that are not effective at apply for an alternative permit or an individual permit. quality. The small MS4s are required to controlling pollutants, then implement a SWMP consisting of implementing the revisions, and Water Quality-Based Effluent control measures. These control evaluating again. The changes contained Limitations measures include the following: Public in the draft general permits reflect the The draft permit includes provisions education and outreach; public iterative process of MEP. Accordingly, designed to protect water quality the draft general permits contain more participation; illicit discharge detection standards. The provisions in Parts 2.1, specific tasks and details than the 2003 and elimination; construction 2.2, and 2.3 of the general permit general permit. stormwater management; stormwater constitute the water quality-based management in new development and Summary of Permit Conditions effluent limitations of the permit. The redevelopment; and good housekeeping purpose of this part of the permit is to Obtaining Authorization in municipal operations. include water quality-based effluent Implementation of the SWMP involves In order for a small MS4 to obtain limitations for those discharges the identification of BMPs and authorization to discharge, it must requiring additional controls in order to submit a complete and accurate NOI measurable goals for BMPs. The draft achieve water quality standards and permit identifies an objective for each containing the information in Appendix other water quality related objectives. control measure. The small MS4 must F of the draft general permit. The NOI EPA invites comments on its approach implement the control measures must be submitted within 90 days of the to addressing water quality standards in effective date of the final permit. The this draft permit. required by the general permit and effective date of the final permit will be document actions in the SWMP that specified in the Federal Register Non-Numeric Effluent Limitations demonstrate progress toward publication of the Notice of Availability When EPA has not promulgated achievement of the objective of the of the final permit. A small MS4 must effluent limitations for a category of control measure. The permit also meet the eligibility requirements of the discharges, or if an operator is contains outfall monitoring general permit found in Part 1.2 and discharging a pollutant not covered by requirements that are associated with Part 1.9 prior to submission of its NOI. an effluent limitation guideline, effluent implementation of the illicit discharge A small MS4 will be authorized to limitations may be based on the best detection and elimination program, as discharge under the permit upon the professional judgment (BPJ) of the well as record keeping and reporting effective date of coverage. The effective agency or permit writer. The BPJ limits requirements. date of coverage is upon receipt of in the general permit are in the form of Dated: October 27, 2010. written notice from EPA following a non-numeric control measures, public notice of the NOI. commonly referred to as best H. Curtis Spalding, The draft general permit provides management practices (BMPs). Non- Regional Administrator, Region 1. interim coverage for permittees covered numeric limits are employed under [FR Doc. 2010–27904 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] by the previous permit and whose limited circumstances, as described in BILLING CODE 6560–50–P coverage was effective upon the 40 CFR 122.44(k). EPA has interpreted expiration date of that permit (May 1, the CWA to allow BMPs to take the 2008). For those discharges covered by place of numeric effluent limitations the previous permit, authorization under certain circumstances. 40 CFR under the previous permit is continued 122.44(k) provides that permits may automatically on an interim basis for up include BMPs to control or abate the to 180 days from the effective date of the discharge of pollutants when: ‘‘(1)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67963

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION in the General Permit. The General Dated: October 19, 2010. AGENCY Permit does not cover new sources as Ira W. Leighton, defined under 40 CFR 122.2. Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1. [FRL–9220–2] The purpose of this document is to [FR Doc. 2010–27763 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Availability of Draft NPDES General solicit public comments on the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Permits MAG580000 and NHG580000 proposed General Permits. for Discharges From Publicly Owned Public Comment Period: The public Treatment Works Treatment Plants comment period is from November 4, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (POTW Treatment Plants) and Other 2010 to December 6, 2010. Interested AGENCY Treatment Works Treating Domestic persons may submit written comments [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0877; FRL–8849–8] Sewage in the Commonwealth of on the draft General Permit to the EPA- Massachusetts and the State of New Region I at the address listed below. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Hampshire Within the comment period, interested Program (EDSP); Announcing the Availability of a Draft for Weight-of- AGENCY: persons may also request, in writing, Environmental Protection Evidence Guidance Document: Agency (EPA). that EPA hold a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR Section 124.12, concerning Evaluating Results of EDSP Tier 1 ACTION: Notice. the draft General Permits. Such requests Screening To Identify Candidate SUMMARY: The Director of the Office of shall state the nature of the issues Chemicals for Tier 2 Testing Ecosystem Protection, EPA–New proposed to be raised at the hearing. A AGENCY: Environmental Protection England, is issuing a notice of public hearing may be held at least Agency (EPA). thirty days after public notice whenever availability for public comment of the ACTION: Notice. draft National Pollutant Discharge the Regional Administrator finds that Elimination System (NPDES) general response to this notice indicates SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the permits for certain Publicly Owned significant public interest. In reaching a availability for public review and Treatment Works Treatment Plants final decision on this draft permit, the comment of a draft guidance document (POTW treatment plants) and Other Regional Administrator will respond to titled, ‘‘Weight-of-Evidence Guidance Treatment Works Treating Domestic all significant comments and make Document: Evaluating Results of EDSP Sewage (collectively, ‘‘facilities’’) in the responses available to the public at Tier 1 Screening to Identify Candidate Commonwealth of Massachusetts EPA’s Boston office. All comments and Chemicals for Tier 2 Testing.’’ This (including both Commonwealth and requests for public hearings must be action is in compliance with a directive Indian country lands) and the State of postmarked or delivered before from the House Appropriations New Hampshire. Throughout this midnight December 6, 2010, the close of Committee FY 2010 Report directing the document, these two permits are the public comment period. All public EPA to develop and publish criteria by collectively referred to as the ‘‘Publicly comments or requests for a public October 30, 2010, for evaluating results Owned Treatment Works General hearing must be submitted to the of Tier 1 screening and determining Permit’’ (‘‘POTW GP’’ or the ‘‘General address below. whether a chemical should undergo Tier Permit’’). The draft General Permits, 2 analysis. The purpose of the weight- ADDRESSES: Written comments on the upon final issuance, will replace the of-evidence (WoE) document is to set draft General Permit may be hand prior POTW GP which expired on forth some of the general principles, delivered or mailed to Meridith Timony, September 23, 2010. criteria, and considerations EPA EPA-Region 1, Office of Ecosystem The draft POTW GP establishes generally believes to be relevant under Protection, OEP06–1, 5 Post Office Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements as a WoE approach for evaluating data Square-Suite 100, Boston, well as effluent limitations, standards, submitted as part of EPA’s two-tiered Massachusetts 02109–3912; or sent via and prohibitions for facilities that paradigm for screening and testing discharge to fresh and marine waters. e-mail to [email protected]. No chemicals for endocrine activity (i.e., Coverage under these General Permits is facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. estrogen, androgen, and thyroid available to facilities in Massachusetts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For hormonal systems; E, A, and T) under classified as minor facilities and to further information contact Meridith the EDSP. This document provides a facilities in New Hampshire classified Timony at 617–918–1533, between the transparent scientific approach for as major or minor facilities. Owners hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday broadly evaluating Tier 1 screening data and/or operators of these facilities, through Friday, excluding holidays. The to detect an interaction with E, A, and/ including those facilities authorized to draft General Permits are based on an or T hormonal systems and determine if discharge under the current General administrative record available for additional Tier 2 testing is necessary. Permit, will be required to submit an public review at EPA-Region 1, Office of DATES: Comments must be received on NOI to be covered by the reissued Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office or before January 3, 2011. POTW GP to both EPA-New England Square-Suite 100, Boston, ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, and the appropriate State agency, in Massachusetts 02109–3912, Monday identified by docket identification (ID) accordance with the notification through Friday from 9 a.m.–5 p.m., number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0877, by requirements of the General Permit. excluding holidays. The draft General one of the following methods: Following EPA and the State review of Permit and a Fact Sheet may also be • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// the NOI, the facility will receive a viewed over the Internet via the EPA- www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line written notification from EPA of permit Region I Web site at http:// instructions for submitting comments. coverage and authorization to discharge www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/potw- • Mail: Document Control Office under the General Permit. The eligibility gp.html. To obtain a paper copy of the (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention requirements for permit coverage, documents, please contact Meridith and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental including the requirement that a facility Timony using the contact information Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania have a receiving water dilution factor provided above. A reasonable fee may Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– equal to or greater than 50, are provided be charged for copying requests. 0001.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room entities not listed in this unit could also Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 be affected. The North American Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Industrial Classification System Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID legal holidays. The telephone number of (NAICS) codes have been provided to Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0877. the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is assist you and others in determining The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., (202) 566–1744, and the telephone whether this action might apply to Monday through Friday, excluding legal number for the OPPT Docket is (202) certain entities. If you have any holidays. The telephone number for the 566–0280. Docket visitors are required questions regarding the applicability of DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries to show photographic identification, this action to a particular entity, consult are only accepted during the DCO’s pass through a metal detector, and sign the technical person listed under FOR normal hours of operation, and special the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. arrangements should be made for processed through an X-ray machine deliveries of boxed information. and subject to search. Visitors will be B. What should I consider as I prepare Instructions: Direct your comments to provided an EPA/DC badge that must be my comments for EPA? docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– visible at all times in the building and 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 2010–0877. EPA’s policy is that all returned upon departure. information to EPA through comments received will be included in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the docket without change and may be regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark technical information contact: Don the part or all of the information that made available on-line at http:// Bergfelt, Office of Science Coordination www.regulations.gov, including any you claim to be CBI. For CBI and Policy (7203M), Environmental information in a disk or CD–ROM that personal information provided, unless Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania the comment includes information you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then claimed to be Confidential Business 0001; telephone number: (202) 564– Information (CBI) or other information identify electronically within the disk or 8472; e-mail address: CD–ROM the specific information that whose disclosure is restricted by statute. [email protected]. Do not submit information that you is claimed as CBI. In addition to one For general information contact: The complete version of the comment that consider to be CBI or otherwise TSCA–Hotline, ABVI–Goodwill, 422 protected through regulations.gov or e- includes information claimed as CBI, a South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY copy of the comment that does not mail. The regulations.gov Web site is an 14620; telephone number: (202) 554– ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which contain the information claimed as CBI 1404; e-mail address: TSCA– must be submitted for inclusion in the means EPA will not know your identity [email protected]. or contact information unless you public docket. Information so marked provide it in the body of your comment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: will not be disclosed except in If you send an e-mail comment directly I. General Information accordance with procedures set forth in to EPA without going through 40 CFR part 2. regulations.gov, your e-mail address A. Does this action apply to me? 2. Tips for preparing your comments. will be automatically captured and This action is directed to the public When submitting comments, remember included as part of the comment that is in general. You may be potentially to: placed in the docket and made available affected by this action if you produce, i. Identify the document by docket ID on the Internet. If you submit an manufacture, use, consume, work with, number and other identifying electronic comment, EPA recommends or import industrial or pesticide information (subject heading, Federal that you include your name and other chemicals. To determine whether you or Register date and page number). contact information in the body of your your business may be affected by this comment and with any disk or CD–ROM action, you should carefully examine ii. Follow directions. The Agency may you submit. If EPA cannot read your section 408(p) of the Federal Food, ask you to respond to specific questions comment due to technical difficulties Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) (21 or organize comments by referencing a and cannot contact you for clarification, U.S.C. 346a(p)) and the Safe Drinking Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part EPA may not be able to consider your Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j–17). or section number. comment. Electronic files should avoid Potentially affected entities may iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; the use of special characters, any form include, but are not limited to: suggest alternatives and substitute of encryption, and be free of any defects • Chemical manufacturers, importers language for your requested changes. or viruses. and processors (NAICS code 325), e.g., iv. Describe any assumptions and Docket: All documents in the docket persons who manufacture, import, or provide any technical information and/ are listed in the docket index available process chemical substances. at http://www.regulations.gov. Although • Pesticide, fertilizer, and other or data that you used. listed in the index, some information is agricultural chemical manufacturers v. If you estimate potential costs or not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other (NAICS code 3253), e.g., persons who burdens, explain how you arrived at information whose disclosure is manufacture, import or process your estimate in sufficient detail to restricted by statute. Certain other pesticide, fertilizer, and agricultural allow for it to be reproduced. material, such as copyrighted material, chemicals. vi. Provide specific examples to • will be publicly available only in hard Scientific research and illustrate your concerns and suggest copy. Publicly available docket development services (NAICS code alternatives. materials are available electronically at 5417), e.g., persons who conduct testing http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only of chemical substances for endocrine vii. Explain your views as clearly as available in hard copy, at the OPPT effects. possible, avoiding the use of profanity Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in This listing is not intended to be or personal threats. the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. exhaustive, but rather provides a guide viii. Make sure to submit your 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 for readers regarding entities likely to be comments by the comment period Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, affected by this action. Other types of deadline identified.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67965

II. Background gonadal axis, multiple pathways of on a broad range of environmental exposure and life-stages, and various issues affecting local governments. A. What action is the agency taking? taxa to further identify and characterize These new appointments include: EPA is announcing the availability of chemical-induced interactions with E, Mayors (Large Cities) a draft guidance document titled, A, and/or T for risk assessment. The ‘‘Weight-of-Evidence Guidance diversity in endocrine endpoints within Phil Gordon, Mayor, Phoenix, Document: Evaluating Results of EDSP and among the Tier 1 screening assays Arizona. Tier 1 Screening to Identify Candidate is expected to provide corroborating John W. Hickenlooper, Mayor, Chemicals for Tier 2 Testing.’’ This information and support a WoE Denver, Colorado. document invites the public to review evaluation to yield a decision as to Mayors (Moderate Sized Cities) and comment on the guidance whether or not the chemical indentified document, which is available in Tier 1 requires additional testing in Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor, electronically at regulations.gov (http:// Tier 2. Pleasanton, California. www.regulations.gov) using docket ID Terry Bellamy, Mayor, Asheville, number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0877 B. What is the agency’s authority for North Carolina. and the EDSP Web site http:// taking this action? Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor, Burnsville, www.epa.gov/endo. Section 408(p) of FFDCA requires Minnesota. This document was prepared to EPA to ‘‘develop a screening program, Teresa Coons, Mayor, Grand Junction, provide a transparent, scientific using appropriate validated test systems Colorado. approach to set forth some general and other scientifically relevant Dana L. Redd, Mayor, Camden, New principles, criteria, and considerations information, to determine whether Jersey. EPA generally believes to be relevant certain substances may have an effect in Mayors (Small Cities and Towns) using a WoE approach to evaluate data humans that is similar to an effect submitted as part of EPA’s EDSP produced by a naturally occurring Bob Dixson, Mayor, Greensburg, involving a battery of validated Tier 1 estrogen, or such other endocrine effect Kansas. screening assays as described in a notice as [EPA] may designate.’’ (21 U.S.C. Marilyn Murrell, Mayor, Arcadia, published in the Federal Register issue 346a(p)). The statute generally requires Oklahoma. of October 21, 2009 (74 FR 54415) (FRL– EPA to ‘‘provide for the testing of all Ronald K. Davis, Mayor, Prichard, 8432–6). The criteria discussed in this pesticide chemicals.’’ (21 U.S.C. Alabama. document are based, in part, on EPA’s 346a(p)(3)). ‘‘Pesticide chemical’’ is Adam Ortiz, Mayor, Edmonston, experience in developing and applying defined as ‘‘any substance that is a Maryland. risk assessment guidelines involving pesticide within the meaning of the Heather McTeer Hudson, Mayor, cancer, reproductive and developmental Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Greenville, Mississippi. toxicity, and ecological toxicity. Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), including all Carolyn Peterson, Mayor, Ithaca, New Important considerations include the active and inert ingredients of such York. Lisa A.Wong, Mayor, Fitchburg, use of expert judgment formed through pesticide.’’ (21 U.S.C. 321(q)(1)). the scientific process, current Massachusetts. understanding of endocrine List of Subjects David W. Smith, Mayor, Newark, mechanisms of toxicity, and knowledge Environmental protection, Endocrine California. of other fields of toxicology (e.g., disruptors, Screening assays, Weight-of- Tribal (Elected and Appointed) developmental, reproductive, evidence. neurological and immunological Steve Ortiz, Chairman Prairie Band Dated: October 27, 2010. Potawatomi Nation, Kansas. toxicology, and toxicokinetics). Stephen A. Owens, Principles articulated in this document Aaron Miles, Manager at Nez Perce Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Tribe, Idaho. are equally applicable to a WoE Safety and Pollution Prevention. evaluation of data from individual Commonwealth assays with multiple endpoints, as well [FR Doc. 2010–27897 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Evelyn Delereme Camacho, Mayor, as across the whole suite of assays in the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Municipality of Vieques, Puerto Rico. EDSP Tier 1 screening battery. In addition, these principles would be ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION County Executive generally applicable to the review of AGENCY Tom Hickner, County Executive, Bay other scientifically relevant information County, Michigan. (OSRI) submitted in response to test [FRL–9220–9] orders that request OSRI to be County Commissioners considered in lieu of designated Announcement of Local Government Advisory Committee Members *Dave Somers, Councilor, Snohomish screening assays in the Tier 1 battery. County, Washington. In general, the EDSP is a two-tiered AGENCY: Environmental Protection Robert Cope, Commissioner, Lemhi paradigm for screening and testing Agency. County, Idaho. chemicals with the potential to interact ACTION: Notice. Salud Carbajal, Supervisor, Santa with the endocrine system. Tier 1 Barbara County, California. screening consists of a battery of SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental complementary in vitro and short term Protection Agency announces that Conservation Districts in vivo assays designed to maximize Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has Jeffrey Tiberi, Director of Montana sensitivity for detecting interactions appointed 29 local, State, and Tribal Association of Conservation Districts, with the E, A, and/or T hormonal elected and appointed officials from Helena, Montana. systems; whereas, Tier 2 testing consists across the country to serve on the EPA’s of a group of individual in vivo tests Local Government Advisory Committee City Councilmember designed to include males and females (LGAC). The Committee’s purpose will Jill Duson, Councilor, Portland, with an intact hypothalamic-pituitary- be to give advice and recommendations Maine.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67966 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

State Elected Officials same product must apply for a separate meet the required technical Mary Margaret Whipple, State waiver based on the specific project specification. The United States stopped Senator, Commonwealth of Virginia. circumstances. The Regional producing 40lb/yd rail at the turn of Chris Ross, State Representative 158th Administrator is making this 20th Century due to increases in weight District, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. determination based on the review and demand on railroads. The ASCE recommendations of the EPA Region 6, designed a load limit for railroad tracks County Judge Water Quality Protection Division. Taos that severely limited the quantity of rail Edward M. Emmett, Harris County has provided sufficient documentation less than 80 lb/yd being produced. Taos Judge, Houston, Texas. to support its request. has also indicated that Steel of West The Assistant Administrator of the Virginia is a steel mill that produces Appointed Officials EPA’s Office of Administration and rails for the mining industry and this Dr. Hector Gonzalez, Director, Laredo, Resources Management has concurred manufacturer’s product does not meet Texas Health Dept. on this decision to make an exception ASCE standards and therefore cannot be Susan Hann, Deputy City Manager, to Section 1605 of ARRA. This action used in this project. Palm Bay, Florida permits the purchase of 40 lb/yd ASCE Based on additional research (*Formerly served one term on crane railing not manufactured in conducted by EPA Region 6, there does LGAC). America, for the proposed project being not appear to be any domestic crane rail If you desire further information go to: implemented by Taos. manufacturer that would meet Taos’ at http://www.epa.gov/ocir/scas or DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2010. technical specifications. EPA’s national contractor prepared a technical contact the Designated Federal Officer FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: assessment report based on the waiver (DFO), [email protected]. Nasim Jahan, Buy American request submittal. The report confirmed Coordinator, (214) 665–7522, SRF & Dated: October 29, 2010. the waiver applicant’s claim that there Projects Section, Water Quality Frances Eargle, is no American-made 40 lb/yd crane Protection Division, U.S. EPA Region 6, Designated Federal Officer, Local Government railing available for the overhead bridge 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– Advisory Committee. crane for use in the proposed WWTP. 2733. [FR Doc. 2010–27877 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] EPA has determined that the City’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BILLING CODE 6560–50–P : In waiver request may be treated as timely accordance with ARRA Section 1605(c), even though the request was made after EPA hereby provides notice that it is the construction contract was signed. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION granting a project waiver of the Consistent with the direction of the AGENCY requirements of Section 1605(a) of OMB Guidance at 2 CFR 176.120, EPA Public Law 111–5, Buy American [FRL–9220–4] has evaluated the City’s request to requirements, to Taos for the acquisition determine if the request constitutes a Notice of a Project Waiver of Section of 40 lb/yd ASCE crane railing that will late request. EPA will generally regard 1605 (Buy American Requirement) of be part of the overhead bridge crane for waiver requests with respect to the American Recovery and the WWTP. components that were specified in the Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to Section 1605 of the ARRA requires bid solicitation or in a general/primary the Town of Taos, NM that none of the appropriated funds may construction contract as ‘‘late’’ if be used for the construction, alteration, submitted after the contract date. AGENCY: Environmental Protection maintenance, or repair of a public However, in this case EPA has Agency (EPA). building or public work unless all of the determined that the City’s request, ACTION: Notice. iron, steel, and manufactured goods though made after the contract date, used in the project are produced in the may be treated as timely. This request SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator United States unless a waiver is is submitted after the contract date of EPA Region 6 is hereby granting a provided to the recipient by EPA. A because the crane rail, according to the project waiver of the Buy American waiver may be provided if EPA project specifications, must be designed requirements of ARRA Section 1605 determines that (1) applying these by a qualified supplier. The supplier under the authority of Section requirements would be inconsistent provided this information through 1605(b)(2) [manufactured goods are not with public interest; (2) iron, steel, and contractor submittals. The need for a produced in the United States in the relevant manufactured goods are not waiver was not determined until after sufficient and reasonably available produced in the United States in the supplier of the overhead bridge quantities and of a satisfactory quality] sufficient and reasonably available crane confirmed that there was no to the Town of Taos (‘‘Taos’’) for the quantities and of a satisfactory quality; domestically made 40 lb/yd crane purchase of 40 lb/yd American Society or (3) inclusion of iron, steel, and the railing available to meet the project of Civil Engineers (ASCE) crane railing, relevant manufactured goods produced specifications. Accordingly, EPA will which is part of the overhead bridge in the United States will increase the evaluate the request as a timely request. crane, proposed for the expansion of its cost of the overall project by more than The April 28, 2009 EPA HQ existing Wastewater Treatment Plant 25 percent. Memorandum, Implementation of Buy (WWTP). The 40 lb/yd ASCE crane Taos’ waiver request is to allow the American provisions of Public Law railing is manufactured by companies purchase of a 40lb/yd ASCE crane 111–5, the ‘‘American Recovery and located in foreign countries and no railing that will be part of the overhead Reinvestment Act of 2009’’, defines United States manufacturer produces an bridge crane for the WWTP in Taos, reasonably available quantity as ‘‘the alternative that meets Taos’ technical New Mexico. Taos has provided quantity of iron, steel, or relevant specifications. This is a project specific information to the EPA demonstrating manufactured good is available or will waiver and only applies to the use of the that there is no 40 lb/yd ASCE crane be available at the time needed and specified product for the ARRA funded railing manufactured in the United place needed, and in the proper form or project being proposed. Any other States in sufficient and reasonable specification as specified in the project ARRA project that may wish to use the quantity and of a satisfactory quality to plans and design.’’ Taos has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67967

incorporated specific technical design Section 1605(c), for waivers ‘‘based on a (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. requirements for installation of crane finding under subsection (b).’’ Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 rail at its WWTP. Therefore, it meets the Authority: Pub. L. 111–5, section 1605. Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, requirements of the ‘‘satisfactory DC 20460; telephone: (303) 312–6443; quality’’ criterion for requesting a waiver Dated: October 18, 2010. fax number (202) 564–5603; e-mail from the Buy American provisions of Al Armendariz, address: [email protected]. Public Law 111–5. Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the ARRA is to Protection Agency, Region 6. stimulate economic recovery in part by [FR Doc. 2010–27879 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] I. Additional Information About the funding current infrastructure BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Proposed Consent Decree construction, not to delay projects that The proposed consent decree would are ‘‘shovel ready’’ by requiring utilities, resolve a lawsuit seeking to compel such as Taos, to revise their standards ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION action by the Administrator to take final and specifications, institute a new AGENCY action under section 110(k) of the CAA bidding process, and potentially choose [FRL–9221–3] on the Utah SIP submissions. The a more costly, less efficient project. The proposed consent decree requires EPA imposition of ARRA Buy American Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air to sign for publication in the Federal requirements on such projects otherwise Act Citizen Suit Register no later than December 1, 2011, eligible for State Revolving Fund a final action in which it either AGENCY: Environmental Protection assistance would result in unreasonable approves in whole, approves in part and Agency (EPA). delay and thus displace the ‘‘shovel disapproves in part, or disapproves in ready’’ status for this project. To further ACTION: Notice of proposed consent whole, the State of Utah’s request to re- delay construction is in direct conflict decree; request for public comment. designate Salt Lake and Utah Counties with a fundamental economic purpose SUMMARY: In accordance with section and Ogden City to attainment for the of the ARRA, which is to create or retain 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended National Ambient Air Quality Standard jobs. (‘‘CAA’’ or the ‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), (‘‘NAAQS’’) for particulate matter having The Region 6 Water Quality notice is hereby given of a proposed an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal Protection Division has reviewed this consent decree to address a lawsuit filed 10 micrometers (‘‘PM–10’’), along with waiver request, and has determined that by WildEarth Guardians in the United Utah’s maintenance plan for Salt Lake the supporting documentation provided States District Court for the District of and Utah Counties and Ogden City for by Taos is sufficient to meet the criteria Colorado: WildEarth Guardians v. the PM–10 NAAQS, that Utah submitted listed under ARRA, Section 1605(b), Jackson, No. 10–cv–01218–REB–BNB to EPA on September 2, 2005, and Office of Management and Budget (D. CO.). On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff which EPA previously proposed to (OMB) regulations at 2 CFR 176.60– filed a complaint alleging that EPA disapprove in whole on December 1, 176.170, and in the April 28, 2009 failed to perform a mandatory duty 2009. ‘‘ memorandum, Implementation of Buy under section 110(k)(2) of the CAA, 42 The proposed consent decree also American provisions of Public Law U.S.C. 7410(k)(2) to take action on two requires EPA to sign for publication in 111–5, the American Recovery and State Implementation Plan (‘‘SIP’’) the Federal Register no later than April Reinvestment Act of 2009. The basis for submissions from the State of Utah with 30, 2012, a notice of proposed action in this project waiver is the authorization the time frame required. The proposed which it proposes either to approve in provided in ARRA, Section 1605(b) (2). consent decree establishes deadlines for whole, approve in part and disapprove Due to the lack of production of this EPA to take action. in part, or disapprove in whole, the product in the United States in State of Utah’s Regional Haze SIP DATES: Written comments on the sufficient and reasonably available submission that Utah submitted to EPA proposed consent decree must be quantities and of a satisfactory quality on September 9, 2008. In addition, the received by December 6, 2010. in order to meet Taos’ technical proposed consent decree requires EPA specifications, a waiver from the Buy ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, to sign for publication in the Federal American requirement is justified. identified by Docket ID number EPA– Register no later than October 31, 2012, EPA headquarters’ March 31, 2009 HQ–OGC–2010–0901, online at http:// a final action in which it either Delegation of Authority Memorandum www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred approves in whole, approves in part and provided Regional Administrators with method); by e-mail to disapproves in part, or disapproves in the authority to issue exceptions to [email protected]; by mail to EPA whole, the State of Utah’s Regional Haze Section 1605 of ARRA within the Docket Center, Environmental SIP submission that Utah submitted to geographic boundaries of their Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, EPA on September 9, 2008. respective regions and with respect to 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., For a period of thirty (30) days requests by individual grant recipients. Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by following the date of publication of this Having established both a proper basis hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket notice, the Agency will accept written to specify the particular good required Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 comments relating to the proposed for this project, and that this Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, consent decree from persons who were manufactured good was not available DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. not named as parties or intervenors to from a producer in the United States, Monday through Friday, excluding legal the litigation in question. EPA or the Taos is hereby granted a waiver from the holidays. Comments on a disk or CD– Department of Justice may withdraw or Buy American requirements of ARRA, ROM should be formatted in Word or withhold consent to the proposed Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5 for ASCII file, avoiding the use of special consent decree if the comments disclose the purchase of ‘‘40 lb/yd crane railing’’ characters and any form of encryption, facts or considerations that indicate that using ARRA funds, as specified in Taos’ and may be mailed to the mailing such consent is inappropriate, request. This supplementary address above. improper, inadequate, or inconsistent information constitutes the detailed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara with the requirements of the Act. Unless written justification required by ARRA, Laumann, Air and Radiation Law Office EPA or the Department of Justice

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67968 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

determines that consent to this consent B. How and to whom do I submit ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION decree should be withdrawn, the terms comments? AGENCY of the decree will be affirmed. You may submit comments as [Docket No. EPA–RO4–SFUND–2010–0892, FRL–9220–5] II. Additional Information About provided in the ADDRESSES section. Commenting on the Proposed Consent Please ensure that your comments are Arkwright Dump Site, Spartanburg, Decree. submitted within the specified comment Spartanburg County, SC; Notice of A. How can I get a copy of the consent period. Comments received after the Settlement decree? close of the comment period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to AGENCY: Environmental Protection The official public docket for this consider these late comments. Agency. ACTION: action (identified by Docket ID No. If you submit an electronic comment, Notice of Settlement. EPA–HQ–OGC–2010–0901) contains a EPA recommends that you include your SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h)(1) of the copy of the proposed consent decree. name, mailing address, and an e-mail Comprehensive Environmental The official public docket is available address or other contact information in Response, Compensation and Liability for public viewing at the Office of the body of your comment and with any Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Information (OEI) Docket disk or CD ROM you submit. This Environmental Protection Agency has in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, ensures that you can be identified as the entered into a settlement for Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., submitter of the comment and allows reimbursement of past response costs NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot concerning the Arkwright Dump Site Center Public Reading Room is open read your comment due to technical located in Spartanburg, Spartanburg from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday difficulties or needs further information County, South Carolina for publication. through Friday, excluding legal on the substance of your comment. Any DATES: The Agency will consider public holidays. The telephone number for the identifying or contact information comments on the settlement until Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, provided in the body of a comment will December 6, 2010. The Agency will and the telephone number for the OEI be included as part of the comment that consider all comments received and Docket is (202) 566–1752. is placed in the official public docket, may modify or withdraw its consent to An electronic version of the public and made available in EPA’s electronic the settlement if comments received docket is available through http:// public docket. If EPA cannot read your disclose facts or considerations which www.regulations.gov. You may use comment due to technical difficulties indicate that the settlement is http://www.regulations.gov to submit or and cannot contact you for clarification, inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. view public comments, access the index EPA may not be able to consider your ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are listing of the contents of the official comment. available from Ms. Paula V. Painter. Submit your comments, identified by public docket, and to access those Use of the http://www.regulations.gov documents in the public docket that are Docket ID No. EPA–RO4–SFUND–2010– Web site to submit comments to EPA 0892 or Site name Arkwright Dump Site available electronically. Once in the electronically is EPA’s preferred method by one of the following methods: system, key in the appropriate docket for receiving comments. The electronic • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow identification number then select public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous the on-line instructions for submitting ‘‘search’’. access’’ system, which means EPA will comments. It is important to note that EPA’s not know your identity, e-mail address, • http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ policy is that public comments, whether or other contact information unless you sf/enforce.htm. submitted electronically or in paper, provide it in the body of your comment. • E-mail. [email protected]. will be made available for public In contrast to EPA’s electronic public FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: viewing online at http:// docket, EPA’s electronic mail (e-mail) Paula V. Painter at 404/562–8887. www.regulations.gov without change, system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ Dated: October 22, 2010. unless the comment contains system. If you send an e-mail comment Anita L. Davis, copyrighted material, CBI, or other directly to the Docket without going Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information information whose disclosure is through http://www.regulations.gov, Management Branch, Superfund Division. restricted by statute. Information your e-mail address is automatically [FR Doc. 2010–27882 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] claimed as CBI and other information captured and included as part of the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P whose disclosure is restricted by statute comment that is placed in the official is not included in the official public public docket, and made available in docket or in the electronic public EPA’s electronic public docket. FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted Dated: October 28, 2010. EXAMINATION COUNCIL material, including copyrighted material Richard B. Ossias, contained in a public comment, will not [Docket No. AS10–9] be placed in EPA’s electronic public Associate General Counsel. [FR Doc. 2010–27884 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of docket but will be available only in Meeting printed, paper form in the official public BILLING CODE 6560–50–P docket. Although not all docket AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the materials may be available Federal Financial Institutions electronically, you may still access any Examination Council. of the publicly available docket ACTION: Notice of meeting. materials through the EPA Docket Description: In accordance with Center. Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67969

Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, Minnesota Compliance Review Report concert; to retain voting shares of Regal and Enforcement Act of 1989, as and letter. Financial Bancorp, Inc., and thereby amended, notice is hereby given that the indirectly retain voting shares of Regal How To Attend and Observe an ASC Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will Financial Bank, both of Seattle, Meeting meet in closed session: Washington. Location: FDIC Building, 1776 F E-mail your name, organization and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Street, NW., Room 4085, Washington, contact information to System, November 1, 2010. DC 20429. [email protected]. Robert deV. Frierson, Date: November 10, 2010. You may also send a written request Deputy Secretary of the Board. Time: Immediately following the ASC via U.S. Mail, fax or commercial carrier open session beginning at 10:30 a.m. to the Executive Director of the ASC, [FR Doc. 2010–27868 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Status: Closed. 1401 H Street, NW., Ste. 760, BILLING CODE 6210–01–P Washington, DC 20005. Your request Matters To Be Considered must be received no later than 4:30 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM October 13, 2010 minutes—Closed p.m., ET, on the Monday prior to the Session. meeting. If that Monday is a Federal Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Preliminary discussion of State holiday, then your request must be Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Compliance Reviews. received 4:30 p.m., ET, on the previous Dated: October 29, 2010. Friday. Attendees must have a valid The companies listed in this notice Deborah S. Merkle, government-issued photo ID and must have applied to the Board for approval, Chairman. agree to submit to reasonable security pursuant to the Bank Holding Company measures. The meeting space is Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) [FR Doc. 2010–27909 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] intended to accommodate public (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part BILLING CODE P attendees. However, if the space will not 225), and all other applicable statutes accommodate all requests, the ASC may and regulations to become a bank FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS refuse attendance on that reasonable holding company and/or to acquire the EXAMINATION COUNCIL basis. assets or the ownership of, control of, or Dated: October 29, 2010. the power to vote shares of a bank or [Docket No. AS10–8] Deborah S. Merkle, bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies Chairman. Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of owned by the bank holding company, Meeting [FR Doc. 2010–27911 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] including the companies listed below. BILLING CODE P AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the The applications listed below, as well Federal Financial Institutions as other related filings required by the Examination Council. Board, are available for immediate FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM ACTION: Notice of meeting. inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be Change in Bank Control Notices; Description: In accordance with available for inspection at the offices of Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the the Board of Governors. Interested Bank Holding Company Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, persons may express their views in and Enforcement Act of 1989, as The notificants listed below have writing on the standards enumerated in amended, notice is hereby given that the applied under the Change in Bank the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and proposal also involves the acquisition of meet in open session for its regular § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 a nonbanking company, the review also meeting: CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank includes whether the acquisition of the Location: FDIC Building, 1776 F or bank holding company. The factors nonbanking company complies with the Street, NW., Room 4085, Washington, that are considered in acting on the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act DC 20429. notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise Date: November 10, 2010. the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). noted, nonbanking activities will be Time: 10:30 a.m. The notices are available for conducted throughout the United States. Status: Open. immediate inspection at the Federal Unless otherwise noted, comments Matters To Be Considered Reserve Bank indicated. The notices regarding each of these applications also will be available for inspection at must be received at the Reserve Bank Summary Agenda the offices of the Board of Governors. indicated or the offices of the Board of October 13, 2010 minutes—Open Interested persons may express their Governors not later than November 29, Session. views in writing to the Reserve Bank 2010. (No substantive discussion of the indicated for that notice or to the offices A. Federal Reserve Bank of above items is anticipated. These of the Board of Governors. Comments Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, matters will be resolved with a single must be received not later than Community Affairs Officer) 90 vote unless a member of the ASC November 19, 2010. Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, requests that an item be moved to the A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Minnesota 55480–0291: discussion agenda.) Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice 1. Bigfork Bancshares, Inc., Bigfork, President, Applications and Minnesota; to merge with Kelliher Discussion Agenda Enforcement), 101 Market Street, San Bancshares Inc., and thereby indirectly Maryland Compliance Review Report Francisco, California 94105–1579: acquire Citizens State Bank of Kelliher, and letter, 1. Henry Liebman, Gail Katz, and both of Kelliher, Minnesota. Massachusetts Compliance Review Sodo Builders, all of Seattle, B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Report and letter, Washington, acting as a group in (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201– NW., Room 1046, Washington, DC Commission Regulation No. 906/2009, 2272: 20573–0001. liner shipping consortia with market 1. Veritex Holdings, Inc., Dallas, Or e-mail non-confidential comments shares up to 30% retain an exemption Texas; to acquire 100 percent of the to: [email protected]. (e-mail comments for certain activities. voting shares of Fidelity Resources as attachments in Microsoft Word) Background Company, and thereby indirectly FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. acquire voting shares of Fidelity Bank, Austin L. Schmitt, Director, Bureau of As the expert agency responsible for Plano, Texas. Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime regulating liner shipping in U.S. trades, 2. WCM Holdings, Inc., and WCM– Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, the Commission has an on-going Parkway, Ltd., both of Dallas, Texas; to NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001, responsibility to keep abreast of changes acquire at least 5 percent of the voting Telephone: (202) 523–5796, E-mail: in foreign laws and regulations that may shares of Veritex Holdings, Inc., and [email protected]. impact liner activities in U.S. trades. The Commission developed the E.U. thereby indirectly acquire voting shares SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Study as a means of meeting that of Professional Bank, NA, both of Dallas, Submit Comments: Non-confidential responsibility, and of determining Texas. filings may be submitted in hard copy whether or not any impacts on U.S. C. Federal Reserve Bank of San or by e-mail as an attachment (Microsoft trades that could be related to the E.U.’s Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice Word) addressed to [email protected] Repeal warranted Commission action President, Applications and on or before January 18, 2011. Include with respect to its existing regulations Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San in the subject line: ‘‘FMC EU Study— and oversight activities under the Francisco, California 94105–1579: Response to NOI’’. Responses to this Shipping Act of 1984 as amended by the 1. SKBHC Holdings, LLC, and SKBHC inquiry that seek confidential treatment Hawks Nest Acquisition Corp., both of Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. must be submitted in hard copy by U.S. In doing so, the Commission was Corona del Mar, California; to acquire mail or courier. Confidential filings 100 percent of the voting shares of cognizant of recommendations made by must be accompanied by a transmittal the National Industrial Transportation AmericanWest Bank, Spokane, letter that identifies the filing as Washington. League (‘‘NITL’’) to the Antitrust ‘‘confidential,’’ describes the nature and Modernization Commission (‘‘AMC’’) in Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve extent of the confidential treatment their October 18, 2006 comments. NITL System, November 1, 2010. requested, and states the reason for the told the AMC that, in light of the E.U.’s Robert deV. Frierson, request (e.g., commercially sensitive repeal of the liner conference block Deputy Secretary of the Board. data). When submitting documents in exemption, it would be appropriate for [FR Doc. 2010–27867 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] response to the NOI that contain the United States government to BILLING CODE 6210–01–P confidential information, the undertake a review of the antitrust confidential copy of the filing must immunity granted under the Shipping consist of the complete filing and be Act. NITL stated, in particular, that such FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION marked by the filer as ‘‘Confidential- a review should include an analysis of Restricted,’’ with the confidential the impact that the changes adopted in Notice of Inquiry; An Analysis of the material clearly marked on each page. Europe will have on the shipment of European Union Repeal of the Liner When a confidential filing is submitted, goods in U.S. trades.2 Conference Block Exemption an original and one additional copy of On November 23, 2009, in a public the public version of the filing must be address to several industry groups, FMC AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. submitted. The public version of the Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. filing should exclude confidential announced the Commission’s intention materials, and be clearly marked on to undertake a comprehensive study of SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime each affected page, ‘‘confidential the impact of the E.U.’s repeal of the Commission (‘‘FMC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) materials excluded.’’ Questions liner block exemption on U.S. trades. He is issuing this inquiry to solicit regarding filing or treatment of noted that the E.U. study would cover information and comments concerning confidential responses to this inquiry a five-year period, from January 2006 the effects on international liner should be directed to the Commission’s through December 2010, and that it shipping of the European Union’s Secretary, Karen V. Gregory, at the would include an analysis of changes in (‘‘E.U.’’) repeal of the liner block telephone number or e-mail provided liner market structure, competition, exemption from competition laws that above. services offered, vessel capacity, rates took effect on October 18, 2008. This The Federal Maritime Commission is and surcharges. He also advised that the information will assist the Commission seeking information and comments from Commission staff was consulting key in its identification, analysis and interested parties regarding the impacts industry and customer groups evaluation of any consequences of the of the E.U. repeal of the liner conference concerning the parameters of the study, E.U.’s policy decision on U.S. trades, block exemption, Regulation (EEC) No. the proposed research methods, and the and will be incorporated into the 4056/86,1 on the performance of liner possibility of future interviews with Commission’s research for An Analysis shipping in U.S. trades. The adoption by industry representatives. Chairman of the E.U. Repeal of the Liner the European Union of Regulation 1419/ Lidinsky declared that the Commission Conference Block Exemption (‘‘E.U. 2006 (‘‘Repeal’’), on September 25, 2006, intended to publish a Notice of Inquiry Study’’) which is scheduled to be removed the previous block exemption (‘‘NOI’’) in late 2010, and stressed the completed in late 2011. from E.U. competition laws as of importance he attached to participation DATES: Responses are due on or before October 18, 2008. Under European by the shipper community in both the January 18, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit all comments 1 Regulation (EEC) No. 4056/86 included a block 2 See Comments Submitted on Behalf of the exemption from E.U. competition laws for liner National Industrial Transportation League, by concerning this Inquiry to: Karen V. shipping conferences, which allowed them, under Attorneys Nicholas J. DiMichael and Karyn A. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime certain conditions, to fix prices and regulate Booth, Thompson Hine LLP, October 18, 2006, page Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, capacity. 9.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67971

E.U. Study in general and the proposed therefore encourages prospective NOI have you identified on your company’s NOI in particular. participants to address all relevant commercial activities, in any trade lane, questions with detailed comments. that you would attribute to the NOI Participation There is, however, no requirement that termination of the E.U. conference block The Commission’s research efforts, participants answer all the NOI exemption? Please explain. If you under the E.U. Study, are intended to questions. Participants, if they wish, are believe there have been such impacts, support a detailed analysis of the impact free to limit their responses to questions please indicate when that impact first of the E.U. repeal on U.S. trades. The where they have direct experience or occurred. Commission is currently collecting, and specific views. In addition, although 2. Based on your experience since will be evaluating data and other many of the NOI questions are designed October 2008 (when the E.U. exemption information on the three main East/West to elicit responses from a broad range of for liner conferences was terminated) trades during the pre- and post-repeal industry participants, the eight final has any class of shipper or class of periods. The E.U. Study analysis will questions are addressed specifically to vessel-operating common carrier involve comparing changes in the E.U./ vessel-operating common carriers. received a competitive advantage or 3 U.S. trade lane (North Europe/U.S.) The Commission anticipates that most been put at a competitive disadvantage over time and, to the extent that useful filed NOI comments will be made as a result of the E.U. decision to comparative data is available, across publicly available. The Commission terminate the exemption? If so, please two Asia-based trade lanes (Far East/ believes that public availability of NOI explain. U.S. and Far East/Europe). The NOI comments is to be encouraged because 3. Based on your experience since questions below—several of which it could improve public awareness of October 2008 (when the E.U. exemption solicit information by specific trade the issues being addressed in the E.U. for liner conferences was terminated), lane—are intended to help inform the Study, and of the various perspectives have differences between U.S. and E.U. Commission of the experiences and of all interested parties. Nevertheless, liner shipping competition regulations views of all industry sectors, groups and some commenting parties may wish to created any problems for your individuals willing to participate. It is include commercially sensitive company? If so, please explain. anticipated that the comments provided information as relevant or necessary in 4. Does your company view could prove useful in the Commission’s their responses by way of explaining evaluation of the data it is currently cooperation among ocean carriers in their liner shipping experiences or operational agreements (e.g., vessel collecting. detailing their responses in practical If participating respondents believe sharing agreements, alliances, consortia, terms. To help assure that all potential that there is a topic related to the issue etc.) as generally having a positive, respondents will provide usefully of the impact of the E.U. repeal of the neutral or negative impact on the detailed information in their liner conference block exemption on availability or cost of liner shipping submissions, the Commission will U.S. liner trades that is not adequately services? Please explain. Does the E.U. provide confidential treatment to the addressed in the NOI questions, they are market share threshold of 30% for such extent allowed by law for those encouraged to identify and address that operational agreements have any effect submissions, or parts of submissions, for topic in their comments to the NOI. with respect to that impact? If so, please To promote maximum participation which the parties request explain. confidentiality. by individual shippers, vessel-operating Section B: Questions about the North common carriers, ocean transportation FMC E.U. Study Notice of Inquiry Atlantic Trade (North Europe/U.S.) intermediaries, public port authorities, Questions 5. Approximately what percent of marine terminal operators, etc., the NOI Identifying Information (Please questions will be made available via the your company’s freight earnings (lines, provide the information requested OTIs) or shipping expenses (shippers) Federal Register and on the below with your NOI response.) Commission’s Web site at http:// involves international shipping in the www.fmc.gov in a downloadable text Name of Respondent: (individual) North Europe/U.S. trade? Does your Respondent’s Title/Position: file. They can also be obtained by company’s business involve US imports Contact Information: Telephone and contacting the Commission’s Secretary, (westbound service) only, U.S. exports E-mail Karen V. Gregory, by telephone at (202) (eastbound service) only, or both? Please Name and Address of Company or explain briefly. 523–5725 or by e-mail at Other Entity: [email protected]. Please indicate 6. How, and to what extent, did the Type of Company or Other Entity: recent economic recession (2008–2009) whether you would prefer a hard copy Beneficial Cargo Owner (BCO) or an e-mail copy of the NOI questions. Ocean Transportation Intermediary affect your company’s liner shipping- Non-confidential comments may be sent (OTI) related business in the North Europe/ to [email protected] as an attachment Shippers’ Association U.S. trade? Please explain. to an e-mail submission. Such Vessel-Operating Ocean Carrier 7. Based on your experience prior to attachments must be in Microsoft Word. (VOCC) July 2008, when the Trans-Atlantic The Commission intends that the E.U. Public Port Authority Conference Agreement (TACA) Study be as thorough as possible, and Other, please describe (e.g., marine disbanded, did the existence of TACA terminal operator, trade association, have any impact on your liner shipping- 3 The Europe/U.S. trades are typically separated government agency, etc.) related business in the North Europe/ into two sub-groups: (1) The North Atlantic trade, U.S. trade? If so, please explain. and (2) the Mediterranean trade. There has been no Section A: General Questions 8. Based on your experience in the conference in the U.S./Mediterranean trade since February 2006. Consequently there was no 1. Based on your experience since period from October 2008 to the present conference for almost all of the 5-year test period September 2006 (when the European (i.e., since the E.U. block exemption was (January 2006–December 2010). Further, the U.S./ Union announced its decision to terminated), has there been any Mediterranean trade involved a good deal of trans- significant change(s) in liner services in shipment. For those reasons, the Bureau has terminate the block exemption for liner decided to focus its U.S./Europe research on the shipping conferences to take effect the North Europe/U.S. trade that you North Atlantic trade. October 2008), what impacts, if any, attribute to the E.U. terminating the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

block exemption? For example, changes 14. Based on your experience in the b. the frequency with which rates or in: period from October 2008 to the present, surcharges are adjusted upward or a. the level of freight rates and have there been any significant downward (rate volatility); surcharges; characteristics of liner services in Far c. the assessment of surcharges; b. the frequency with which rates or East/U.S. trades that you attribute to d. the level of competition among surcharges are adjusted upward or actions taken by TSA or WTSA member ocean carriers; downward (rate volatility); lines acting collectively? For example: e. the service contracting practices or c. the assessment of surcharges; a. the level of freight rates and terms offered by ocean carriers; d. the level of competition among surcharges; f. the availability of vessel capacity ocean carriers; b. the frequency with which rates or and container equipment: and e. the service contracting practices or surcharges are adjusted upward or g. the level or quality of liner services terms offered by ocean carriers; downward (rate volatility); (including customer service, billing f. the availability of vessel capacity c. the assessment of surcharges; accuracy, etc.) and container equipment; or d. the level of competition among If so, please identify and explain g. the level or quality of liner services ocean carriers; those changes. (including customer service, billing e. the service contracting practices or 20. For CY 2010 to date, please accuracy, etc.) estimate the percentage of your annual If so, please identify and explain terms offered by ocean carriers; f. the availability of vessel capacity business (by volume) in the Far East/ those changes. Europe liner trade that moved under (a) 9. For CY 2010 to date, please and container equipment; and g. the level or quality of liner services annual (or longer) service contracts, (b) estimate the percentage of your annual shorter-term freight agreements, (c) spot business (by volume) in the North (including customer service, billing accuracy, etc.) rates, and (d) other (please specify)? Has Europe/U.S. liner trade that moved that changed significantly since October If so, please identify and explain under (a) annual (or longer) service 2008? If so, please explain. those characteristics. contracts, (b) shorter-term freight 21. Following repeal of the E.U. block 15. For CY 2010 to date, please agreements, (c) spot rates, and (d) other exemption, ocean carriers created a estimate the percentage of your annual (please specify). Has that changed global information system under business (by volume) in the Far East/ significantly since October 2008? If so, Container Trade Statistics, Ltd. (CTS), in U.S. liner trade that moves under (a) please explain. which a majority of ocean carriers annual (or longer) service contracts, (b) 10. Following repeal of the E.U. block serving the Far East/Europe trade shorter-term freight agreements, (c) spot exemption, ocean carriers created a participate. CTS makes certain data free rates, and (d) other (please specify)? Has global information system under on its Web site, including indices of the that changed significantly since October Container Trade Statistics, Ltd. (CTS) in carriers’ aggregated average revenue per 2008? If so, please explain. which a majority of ocean carriers TEU by month. CTS also sells other serving the North Europe/U.S. trade Section D: Questions About the data. To what extent, if at all, does your participate. CTS provides certain data Europe—Asia Trade (Far East/Europe) company access and use Far East/ free on its Web site, including indices 16. Approximately what percent of Europe trade data, and (if it does so) for of the carriers’ aggregated average what purpose(s)? revenue per TEU by month. CTS also your company’s freight earnings (lines, sells other data. To what extent, if at all, OTIs) or shipping expenses (shippers) Section E: Comparisons Among Trades does your company access and use CTS involve international shipping in the 22. Based on your experience since Europe/U.S. trade data, and (if it does Far East/Europe trade? Does your October 2008 (since the E.U. block so) for what purpose(s)? company’s business involve European exemption was terminated) are there imports (westbound service) only, differences in the characteristics of the Section C: Questions about the European exports (eastbound service) Transpacific Trade (Far East/U.S.) Far East/U.S. trade versus the Far East/ only, or both? Please explain briefly. Europe or North Europe/U.S. trades that 11. Approximately what percent of 17. How, and to what extent, did the you attribute to differences between your company’s freight earnings (lines, recent economic recession (2008–2009) U.S. and European liner competition OTIs) or shipping expenses (shippers) affect your company’s liner shipping- regulations? For example, differences in: involve international shipping in the related business in the Far East/Europe a. the level of freight rates and Far East/U.S. trade? Does your trade? Please explain. surcharges; company’s business involve U.S. 18. Based on your experience prior to b. the frequency with which rates or imports (eastbound service) only, U.S. October 2008 (i.e., before the Far East surcharges are adjusted upward or exports (westbound service) only, or Freight Conference (FEFC) disbanded), downward (rate volatility); both? Please explain. did the existence of FEFC have any c. the assessment of surcharges; 12. How, and to what extent, did the impact on your liner shipping-related d. the level of competition among recent economic recession (2008–2009) business in the Far East/Europe trade? ocean carriers; affect your company’s liner shipping- Please explain. e. the service contracting practices or related business in the Far East/U.S. 19. Based on your experience in the terms offered by ocean carriers; trade? Please explain. period from October 2008 to the present f. the availability of vessel capacity 13. Based on your experience from (i.e., since the E.U. block exemption was and container equipment; and January 2006 to the present, have the terminated), has there been any g. the level or quality of liner services activities of the Trans-Pacific significant change(s) in liner services in (including customer service, billing Stabilization Agreement (TSA) or the the Far East/Europe trade that you accuracy, etc.) Westbound Trans-Pacific Stabilization attribute to the E.U.’s ending of the If so, please explain those differences. Agreement (WTSA) had any significant block exemption? For example, changes 23. Please identify any significant impact on your company’s liner in: similarities and dissimilarities (for shipping-related business in the Far a. the level of freight rates and example, cargo volumes, scope or scale East/U.S. trades? If so, please explain. surcharges; of operations, shipper mix, geography,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67973

market concentration levels, contracting Section F: Additional Questions for If those percentages changed practices, legal requirements, etc.) that Vessel-Operating Common Carriers significantly during the 2006 through existed in liner shipping markets in the FOR VOCCs ONLY: 2010 period, please describe and (1) Far East/U.S. trade and the (2) Far 24. Please estimate the percentage of explain the change. East/Europe trade during the period your liner revenues (globally) that were 25. In each of the three major East- 2006–2010. In your opinion, how (if at earned in each of the following trade West trades, please estimate the percent all) would those similarities and lanes during CY 2010 to date: of cargo your company carried for dissimilarities likely impact a a. North Europe/U.S. liner trade ll% beneficial cargo owners (BCO) accounts, comparison of liner pricing and service b. Far East/U.S. liner trade ll% (b) OTI accounts, (c) other accounts (if behavior across those two trades? c. Far East/Europe liner trade ll% d. All other liner trades ll% any, please explain) during CY 2010 to e. Total (all liner trades combined) 100% date:

BCO OTI Other

f. North Europe/U.S. liner trade ...... ll% ll% ll% g. Far East/U.S. liner trade ...... ll% ll% ll% h. Far East/Europe liner trade ...... ll% ll% ll%

Has the relative ranking of shipper 26. In each of the three major East- between 2006 and 2010 (inclusive). types in these trade lanes changed West trade lanes, please indicate which [Write M for most, and L for least.] significantly during the 2006 through lanes have tended to be the relatively 2010 period? If so, please describe and most profitable and which was the explain the change. relatively least profitable for each year

Far East/U.S. Far East/Europe North Europe/U.S.

a. 2006 ...... lll lll lll b. 2007 ...... lll lll lll c. 2008 ...... lll lll lll d. 2009 ...... lll lll lll e. 2010 ...... lll lll lll

If those rankings changed in the Far East/U.S. liner shipping By the Commission. significantly during the 2006 through market related to changes in: Karen V. Gregory, 2010 period, please explain the a. Seasonality of cargo movements; Secretary. reason(s) for the change. b. Commodity values; [FR Doc. 2010–27891 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 27. Based on your experience during c. Directional cargo imbalances BILLING CODE 6730–01–P the period from January 2006 to the (imports vs. exports); present, have there been any significant d. Number of carriers serving the changes in the nature of your business trade; or FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION in the North Europe/U.S. liner shipping market related to changes in: e. Minimum scale (# and size of Ocean Transportation Intermediary a. Seasonality of cargo movements; vessels) needed to serve the trade License Applicants b. Commodity values; efficiently c. Directional cargo imbalances If so, please identify and explain Notice is hereby given that the (imports vs. exports); those changes. following applicants have filed with the d. Number of carriers serving the 30. Based on your experience during Federal Maritime Commission an trade; or the period from January 2006 to the application for a license as a Non- e. Minimum scale (# and size of present, have there been any significant Vessel-Operating Common Carrier vessels) needed to serve the trade changes in the nature of your business (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder efficiently in the Far East/E.U. liner shipping (OFF)—Ocean Transportation If so, please identify and explain market related to changes in: Intermediary (OTI) pursuant to section those changes. a. Seasonality of cargo movements; 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as 28. Based on your company’s amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 b. Commodity values; experience in the North Europe/U.S. CFR 515). Notice is also hereby given of c. Directional cargo imbalances trade, please identify any substantial the filing of applications to amend an (imports vs. exports); changes that occurred in your liner existing OTI license or the Qualifying business (operations, marketing, pricing, d. Number of carriers serving the Individual (QI) for a license. etc.) in the two years following repeal of trade; or Interested persons may contact the the E.U. liner conference exemption (CY e. Minimum scale (# and size of Office of Transportation Intermediaries, 2009 and 2010) as compared with the vessels) needed to serve the trade Federal Maritime Commission, two years preceding the repeal (2006– efficiently Washington, DC 20573. 2007)? If any, please explain. If so, please identify and explain AAA Cargo, Inc. dba AAA Cargo 29. Based on your experience during those changes. Express Inc. (OFF), 14536 Roscoe Blvd., the period from January 2006 to the Now Therefore, it is ordered that Notice of Suite 99 & 101, Panorama City, CA present, have there been any significant this Inquiry be published in the Federal 91402. Officers: Jake J. Son, President, changes in the nature of your business Register. (Qualifying Individual), Belen Mercano,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67974 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Financial Officer, Application Type: Officer, (Qualifying Individual), Andy Joerg C. Conrad, Director, Application New OFF License. Wang, President/Secretary/Treasurer, Type: QI Change. A & M Ocean Machinery, Inc. (OFF), Application Type: New OFF License. RDD Freight International (Atlanta), 9725 Fontainebleau Blvd., #103, Miami, General Noli USA Inc. dba General Inc. (NVO & OFF), 510 Plaza Drive, FL 33172. Officers: Alexandra Parra, Freight (NVO & OFF), 148–08 Guy R. Suite 1880, Atlanta, GA 30349. Officers: Vice President/Secretary, (Qualifying Brewer Blvd., 2nd Floor, Jamaica, NY Bill Lou, President, (Qualifying Individual), Daniel Gelpi, President, 11434. Officers: Wei Hu, Vice President, Individual), Yiwen Hu, Treasurer, Application Type: New OFF License. (Qualifying Individual), Gianluca Application Type: New NVO & OFF Canei Group Corporation (NVO & Pirrotta, President, Application Type: QI License. OFF), 1602 Adams Street, Hollywood, Change. FL 33020. Officers: Graziella M. Lobato, GRIP Inc. (OFF), 2328 Throckmorton Summit Logistics International, Inc. Director, (Qualifying Individual), Daniel Street, Dallas, TX 75219. Officers: Ryan (NVO & OFF), 800 Federal Blvd., D. Ferraz, Director, Application Type: M. Keintz, President, (Qualifying Carteret, NJ 07008. Officers: Myles New NVO & OFF License. Individual), David Braginsky, Board O’Brien, CEO, (Qualifying Individual), Cargocare Logistics USA Inc. (NVO), Member/Technology Lead, Application Robert Agresti, CFO/Treasurer, 4501 Baldwin Avenue, El Monte, CA Type: New OFF License. Application Type: Add OFF Service. 91731. Officers: Lam (Sue) S. Lao, Heat Logistics Inc. (NVO & OFF), 428 Dated: October 29, 2010. Director/Secretary/Treasurer/CFO, Promos Avenue, Folcroft, PA 19032. Karen V. Gregory, (Qualifying Individual), Joy V. Officers: Kenneth Cloud, Vice President, Secretary. Pareckattil, President/Director, (Qualifying Individual), Michael Gerace, [FR Doc. 2010–27837 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Application Type: New NVO License. President, Application Type: New NVO BILLING CODE 6730–01–P CJC Logistics Limited Liability & OFF License. Company dba CJC Container Line (NVO Hermes International Movers Corp. & OFF), 186 Alps Road, Wayne, NJ (NVO & OFF), 2383 31st Street, Astoria, FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 07470. Officers: Oliver Rosca, President, NY 11105. Officers: Ioannis Ladis, Vice (Qualifying Individual), Maria L. Rosca, President, (Qualifying Individual), Ocean Transportation Intermediary CFO, Application Type: Trade Name Antonia Ladis, Secretary, Application License Reissuance Change. Type: QI Change. Dandino, Inc. dba Danielli & Winston International Shipping Lines Notice is hereby given that the (NVO & OFF), 626 E. 62nd Street, Los Incorporated (NVO), 2 Thorncliffe Park following Ocean Transportation Angeles, CA 90001. Officers: Carlos Drive, Unit #28, Toronto, ON Canada. Intermediary licenses have been Gonzales, Vice President, (Qualifying Officer: Kamran Shaikh, Operations reissued by the Federal Maritime Individual), Yaniv Daniel, President, Manager/Director, Application Type: Commission pursuant to section 19 of Application Type: New NVO & OFF New NVO License. the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. License. Leschaco, Inc. (NVO & OFF), One Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Ever Best Logistics USA Inc. (OFF), Evertrust Plaza, Suite 304, Jersey City, Commission pertaining to the licensing 135–18 37th Avenue, Flushing, NY NJ 07302. Officers: Michael G. Lovis, of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 11354. Officers: QiJie Sun, Operation President/CEO, (Qualifying Individual), 46 CFR part 515.

License No. Name/address Date reissued

002213NF ...... Staudt International Services Corp., 1028 E. 14th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021 ...... September 16, 2010. 018309N ...... Gunter Shipping, Inc., 1565 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, NY 11213 ...... September 17, 2010. 020934N ...... D.L. International Logistics Inc., 2020 NW. 129th Avenue, #208, Miami, FL 33182 ...... August 23, 2010.

Sandra L. Kusumoto, License Number: 1393N. Reason: Failed to maintain valid Director, Bureau of Certification and Name: McLean Cargo Specialists, surety bonds. Licensing. Incorporated dba Texas Overseas License Number: 16849NF. [FR Doc. 2010–27839 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Shipping. Name: Foreign Cargo Management BILLING CODE 6730–01–P Address: 16680 Central Green Blvd, Corp. Houston, TX 77032. Address: 1764 Quarter Street, West Date Revoked: September 23, 2010. Babylon, NY 11704. Reason: Failed to maintain a valid FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Date Revoked: October 18, 2010. surety bond. Reason: Failed to maintain valid Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Number: 15242N. surety bonds. License Revocations Name: United Freight Consolidators, Inc. dba United Freight Lines. License Number: 18561N. The Federal Maritime Commission Address: 8365 NW. 66th Street, Name: One World Logistics LLC. hereby gives notice that the following Miami, FL 33136. Address: 381 Blair Road, Avenel, NJ Ocean Transportation Intermediary Date Revoked: October 14, 2010. 07001. licenses have been revoked pursuant to Reason: Failed to maintain a valid Date Revoked: October 21, 2010. section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 surety bond. Reason: Failed to maintain a valid (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the License Number: 016300NF. surety bond. regulations of the Commission Name: Rical Air Express, Inc. dba License Number: 019237N. pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Rical Logistics. Name: AERO DOC, Inc. Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Address: One Cross Island Plaza, Address: 1790 NW. 82nd Avenue, part 515, effective on the corresponding Suite 227, Rosedale, NY 11422. Miami, FL 33126. date shown below: Date Revoked: October 15, 2010. Date Revoked: October 17, 2010.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67975

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid Date Revoked: October 23, 2010. utility, and clarity of the information to surety bond. Reason: Failed to maintain a valid be collected; and (4) the use of License Number: 019779N. surety bond. automated collection techniques or Name: Francisca Envios Inc. License Number: 021466F. other forms of information technology to Address: 1749 NW. 21st Terrace, Name: FJ Logistics Services, LLC. minimize the information collection Miami, Fl 33142. Address: 1307 West Sixth Street, burden. Date Revoked: October 16, 2010. Corona, CA 92882. To obtain copies of the supporting Reason: Failed to maintain a valid Date Revoked: October 23, 2010. statement and any related forms for the surety bond. Reason: Failed to maintain a valid proposed paperwork collections License Number: 019871N. surety bond. referenced above, e-mail your request, Name: WLG (USA) LLC Dba Kay License Number: 022152N including your address, phone number, O’Neill (USA) LLC Dba WLG Line. Name: Alpha Global Cargo Inc. OMB number, and OS document Address: 920 East Algonquin Road, Address: 9990 NW. 14th Street, Suite identifier, to Suite 120, Schaumburg, IL 60173. 110, Miami, FL 33172. [email protected], or call Date Revoked: October 22, 2010. Date Revoked: October 4, 2010. the Reports Clearance Office on (202) Reason: Failed to maintain a valid Reason: Surrendered license 690–5683. Send written comments and surety bond. voluntarily. recommendations for the proposed information collections within 30 days License Number: 020178N. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Name: LCL Shipping USA, Inc. Dba of this notice directly to the OS OMB Director, Bureau of Certification and Desk Officer; faxed to OMB at 202–395– Cargo Planet Logistics. Licensing. Address: 15117 South Broadway 5806. Street, Gardena, CA 090248. [FR Doc. 2010–27840 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Proposed Project: The Civil Rights Date Revoked: October 15, 2010. BILLING CODE 6730–01–P Information Request Form—OMB No. Reason: Failed to maintain a valid 0990–0243—Reinstatement without surety bond. Change—Office for Civil Rights (OCR). License Number: 020208F. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Abstract: The Office of Civil Rights Name: Ghanem Forwarding, LLC. HUMAN SERVICES (OCR) is requesting a 3-year extension of Address: 3327 Hollins Ferry Road, the Civil Rights Information Request [Document Identifier OS–0990–0243; 30-Day Form. The Civil Rights Information Halethorpe, MD 21227. Notice] Date Revoked: October 20, 2010. Request Form is designed to collect data Reason: Failed to maintain a valid Agency Information Collection from health care providers who have surety bond. Request; 30-Day Public Comment requested certification to participate in Request the Medicare Part A program. As part of License Number: 020253NF. the Medicare certification process, Name: Concord International AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. health care facilities must receive a civil Transport, Inc. In compliance with the requirement rights clearance from the OCR. The Address: 10100 NW. 116th Way, Suite of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the information is used to determine 14, Medley, FL 33178. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the compliance with civil rights statutes Date Revoked: October 22, 2010. Office of the Secretary (OS), Department and regulations. The civil rights Reason: Failed to maintain valid of Health and Human Services, is information is requested only when a surety bonds. publishing the following summary of a health care provider applies for License Number: 020660F. proposed collection for public Medicare Part A certification; it is not Name: GAL International Inc. comment. Interested persons are invited necessary on a regular yearly basis. Address: 5070 Parkside Avenue, Suite to send comments regarding this burden Entities that are affected by the Civil 3104, Philadelphia, PA 19131. estimate or any other aspect of this Rights Information Request Form are: Date Revoked: October 17, 2010. collection of information, including any Health care providers applying for Reason: Failed to maintain a valid of the following subjects: (1) The Medicare certification, and individuals surety bond. necessity and utility of the proposed who, as a result of civil rights License Number: 020675N. information collection for the proper clearances, should be granted equal Name: Service Galopando Corp. performance of the agency’s functions; access to quality health care, regardless Address: 3190 South State Road 7, (2) the accuracy of the estimated of race, color, national origin, disability, Bay 5, Miramar, FL 33023. burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, and age.

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN TABLE

Average Number of Number of burden (in Total burden Forms Type of respondent respondents responses per hours) per hours respondent response

Medicare Certification ...... Health care providers ...... 2,900 1 8 23,200

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Seleda Perryman, utility, and clarity of the information to from all community-level CPPW Office of the Secretary, Paperwork Reduction be collected; and (4) the use of awardees. This will allow HHS to Act Clearance Officer. automated collection techniques or receive reports on direct awardee costs [FR Doc. 2010–27838 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] other forms of information technology to associated with carrying out the selected BILLING CODE 4153–01–P minimize the information collection evidence-based strategies that are burden. required by the Funding Opportunity To obtain copies of the supporting Announcement (FOA) and Notice of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND statement and any related forms for the Grant Award (NGA). This requirement HUMAN SERVICES proposed paperwork collections is in addition to the financial reporting referenced above, e-mail your request, requirements of Section 512 of the [Document Identifier OS–0990–NEW; including your address, phone number, Recovery Act, set forth by the Office of 30-Day Notice] OMB number, and OS document Management and Budget (OMB) under identifier, to the data collection instrument titled Agency Information Collection [email protected], or call ‘‘Standard Data Elements for Reports Request. 30-Day Public Comment the Reports Clearance Office on (202) under Section 1512 of the American Request 690–5683. Send written comments and Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, recommendations for the proposed AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. Public Law 111–5 (Grants, Cooperative information collections within 30 days Agreements, and Loans).’’ In compliance with the requirement of this notice directly to the OS OMB of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Desk Officer; faxed to OMB at 202–395– The CPPW objective-based cost data Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 5806. submitted by the 51 respondents will Office of the Secretary (OS), Department Proposed Project: Communities provide the basis for HHS to assess the of Health and Human Services, is Putting Prevention to Work Cost Study costs of the various program strategies, publishing the following summary of a Instrument—OMB No. 0990–NEW— identify factors that impact average cost, proposed collection for public Office of the Assistant Secretary for and perform cost-effectiveness analysis comment. Interested persons are invited Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). of the program. Performing an to send comments regarding this burden Abstract: The American Recovery and assessment of the resources expended estimate or any other aspect of this Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed on each CPPW interventions will collection of information, including any into law on February 17, 2009, Public provide valuable information to HHS of the following subjects: (1) The Law 11.5 (‘‘Recovery Act’’). and other agencies within the necessity and utility of the proposed Communities Putting Prevention to Department for improving program information collection for the proper Work (CPPW) is a $650 million program efficiency within the various strategies performance of the agency’s functions; funded by the Recovery Act. The of the program. There are no costs to (2) the accuracy of the estimated purpose of the proposed data collection respondents except their time to burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, is to collect quarterly cost information participate in the survey.

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN TABLE

Number of Average Forms Type of respondent Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours

CPPW Cost Study Instrument ...... CPPW Awardees ...... 51 4 11 2,244

Seleda Perryman, OMB No.: 0980–0267. Congressional and Departmental Office of the Secretary, Paperwork Reduction Description: Section 479 of title IV–E inquiries. Specifically, the data are used Act Reports Clearance Officer. of the Social Security Act (the Act) for short/long-term budget projections, [FR Doc. 2010–27842 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] directs States to establish and trend analysis, child and family service BILLING CODE 4150–05–P implement an adoption and foster care reviews, and to target areas for reporting system. Federal regulations at improved technical assistance. The data 45 CFR 1355.40 sets forth the will provide information about foster DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND requirements of section 479 of the care placements, adoptive parents, HUMAN SERVICES Social Security Act for the collection of length of time in care, delays in uniform, reliable information on Administration for Children and termination of parental rights and children who are under the placement for adoption. Families responsibility of the State title IV–B/IV– E agency for placement, care, and Respondents: State Child Welfare Proposed Information Collection adoption. The respondents are child Agencies. Activity; Comment Request welfare agencies in the 50 States, the Proposed Projects District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The data collected will inform State/ Title: Adoption and Foster Care Federal policy decisions, program Analysis Reporting System for title IV– management, and responses to B and title IV–E (AFCARS).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67977

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours

AFCARS ...... 52 2 2,581 268,424

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours ...... 268,424

In compliance with the requirements Dated: October 29, 2010. component of the study will be an of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Robert Sargis, examination of the Administration on Reduction Act of 1995, the Reports Clearance Officer. Developmental Disabilities’ efficiency Administration for Children and [FR Doc. 2010–27836 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] and effectiveness to support these DD Families is soliciting public comment BILLING CODE 4184–01–P Network programs. The results of this on the specific aspects of the evaluation will provide a report to the information collection described above. Administration on Developmental Copies of the proposed collection of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Disabilities (ADD) (the agency that information can be obtained and HUMAN SERVICES administers these programs) with comments may be forwarded by writing information on the effectiveness of its Administration for Children and to the Administration for Children and programs and policies and serve as a Families Families, Office of Administration, way for ADD to promote accountability to the public. Office of Information Services, 370 Submission for OMB Review; The independent study is a response L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, Comment Request to accountability requirements for ADD DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance as identified in the Developmental Officer. E-mail address: Title: Developmental Disabilities Program Independent Evaluation Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights [email protected]. All requests Act of 2000 (DD Act), the Government should be identified by the title of the Project. OMB No.: 0970–0372. Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of information collection. Description: The National 1993, and the Program Assessment The Department specifically requests Independent Study of the State Rating Tool (PART), previously comments on: (a) Whether the proposed Developmental Disabilities Programs administered by the Office of collection of information is necessary (National Study) is an independent Management and Budget (OMB). for the proper performance of the (non-biased) study to examine through ADD has OMB approval for all the functions of the agency, including rigorous and comprehensive research evaluation tools (e.g., data collection whether the information shall have procedures the three programs funded instruments) for this study, except a practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the under the Developmental Disabilities new one being proposed. The new agency’s estimate of the burden of the Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of evaluation tool would be an on-line proposed collection of information; (c) 2000 (DD Act): (1) State Councils on survey tool designed to collect data for the quality, utility, and clarity of the Developmental Disabilities (SCDDs); an assessment of ADD. information to be collected; and (d) (2) State Protection and Advocacy Respondents: For the ADD assessment ways to minimize the burden of the Systems for Individuals with survey being added, the respondents developmental disabilities (P&As); and would be Staff of State Councils on collection of information on (3) University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, State respondents, including through the use Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs). Protection and Advocacy Systems for of automated collection techniques or The purpose of the study is to assess Individuals with developmental other forms of information technology. program effectiveness and disabilities, and University Centers for Consideration will be given to achievements, including collaborative Excellence in Developmental comments and suggestions submitted efforts among these State developmental Disabilities, Education, Research, and within 60 days of this publication. disabilities (DD) network programs. A Service

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours

ADD Assessment Survey ...... 60 1 1 60 DD Council Estimate of Total Burden Hours for Activities to Support Admin- istration of Proposed Information Collection Instruments ...... 20 1 33.50 670 P&A Estimate of Total Burden Hours for Activities to Support Administration of Proposed Information Collection Instruments ...... 20 1 33.50 670 UCEDD Estimate of Total Burden Hours for Activities to Support Adminis- tration of Proposed Information Collection Instruments ...... 20 1 33.50 670 DD Council: Executive Director Interview ...... 20 1 4 80 DD Council: Interview with Council Chair/Council Members ...... 60 1 0.75 45 DD Council: Group Interview with Policymakers, Collaborators, and Grant- ees ...... 160 1 2 320 UCEDD: Telephone Interview with Current and Graduated Students ...... 100 1 0.75 75 UCEDD: Interview with the Consumer Advisory Committee ...... 60 1 0.75 45

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES—Continued

Number of Average Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden respondents respondent per response hours

UCEDD: Interview with Peer Researchers and Colleagues ...... 100 1 0.75 75 UCEDD: Interview with Recipients of Community Services or Members of Organizations/Agencies that are Trained to Provide Community Services 100 1 0.75 75 UCEDD: Self-administered Form ...... 20 1 8 160 P&A: Executive Director Interview ...... 20 1 4 80 P&A: Staff Interview ...... 60 1 0.75 45 P&A: Board of Directors (Commissioners)-Chair and Members ...... 60 1 0.75 45 P&A: Group Interview with Policymakers and Collaborators ...... 160 1 2 320 P&A: Interview with Recipient of Community Education ...... 100 1 0.75 75 P&A: Interview with Clients ...... 100 1 0.75 75 P&A: Self-administered Form ...... 20 1 8 160 UCEDD: Interview with Director ...... 20 1 4 80 DD Council: Group Interview with Recipients of Self-Advocacy and Leader- ship Education and Training ...... 100 1 0.75 75 DD Council: Group Interview with Recipients of Education and Training to Improve Community Capacity ...... 100 1 0.75 75 DD Council: Self-administered Form ...... 20 1 8 160

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: ...... 4,135

Additional Information DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND comments on the collection of HUMAN SERVICES information to the Division of Dockets Copies of the proposed collection may Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug be obtained by writing to the Food and Drug Administration Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. Administration for Children and [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0564] 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All Families, Office of Administration, comments should be identified with the Office of Information Services, 370 Agency Information Collection docket number found in brackets in the L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, Activities; Proposed Collection; heading of this document. DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Comment Request; Restaurant Menu FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Officer. All requests should be Labeling: Registration for Small Denver Presley, Jr., Office of Information identified by the title of the information Chains Under Section 4205 of the Management, Food and Drug collection. E-mail address: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50– [email protected]. Act of 2010 400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796– 3793. OMB Comment AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB is required to make a decision ACTION: Notice. concerning the collection of information I. Background between 30 and 60 days after SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501– publication of this document in the Administration (FDA) is announcing an 3520), Federal agencies must obtain Federal Register. Therefore, a comment opportunity for public comment on the approval from the Office of Management is best assured of having its full effect proposed collection of certain and Budget (OMB) for each collection of if OMB receives it within 30 days of information by the Agency. Under the information they conduct or sponsor. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the publication. Written comments and ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined in PRA), Federal agencies are required to recommendations for the proposed 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) publish notice in the Federal Register and includes agency requests or information collection should be sent concerning each proposed collection of directly to the following: requirements that members of the public information, including each proposed submit reports, keep records, or provide Office of Management and Budget, extension of an existing collection of information to a third party. Section Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: information, and to allow 60 days for 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 202–395–7285, E-mail: public comment in response to the 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies OIRA_SUBMISSION notice. This notice solicits comments on to provide a 60-day notice in the @OMB.EOP.GOV., Attn: Desk Officer the information collection provisions of Federal Register concerning each for the Administration for Children FDA’s program of voluntary registration proposed collection of information, and Families. under the Patient Protection and including each proposed extension of an Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Affordable existing collection of information, Dated: November 1, 2010. Care Act). before submitting the collection to OMB Robert Sargis, DATES: Submit either electronic or for approval. To comply with this Reports Clearance Officer. written comments on the collection of requirement, FDA is publishing notice [FR Doc. 2010–27855 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] information by January 3, 2011. of the proposed collection of BILLING CODE 4184–01–P ADDRESSES: Submit electronic information set forth in this document. comments on the collection of With respect to the following information to http:// collection of information, FDA invites www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on these topics: (1) Whether

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67979

the proposed collection of information section 4205, FDA published a notice in • The name, address, phone number, is necessary for the proper performance the Federal Register of July 23, 2010 (75 e-mail address, and contact information of FDA’s functions, including whether FR 43182) (the July 23, 2010, notice) to for the authorized official; the information will have practical explain how retail food establishments • The name, address, and e-mail utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA’s and vending machine operators not address of each restaurant or similar estimate of the burden of the proposed otherwise subject to the provisions of retail food establishment being collection of information, including the section 4205 may voluntarily elect to registered, as well as the name and validity of the methodology and become subject to them. The contact information for an official assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance information collection requirements of onsite, such as the owner or manager, the quality, utility, and clarity of the FDA’s program of voluntary registration for each specific restaurant or similar information to be collected; and (4) under section 4205 of the Affordable retail food establishment; ways to minimize the burden of the Care Act were approved under the • All trade names the restaurant or collection of information on emergency processing provisions of the similar retail food establishment uses; PRA and assigned OMB control number respondents, including through the use • Preferred mailing address (if 0910–0664. of automated collection techniques, different from location address for each Voluntary registration allows when appropriate, and other forms of establishment) for purposes of receiving information technology. companies with outlets or machines regulated by local or State calorie correspondence; and • Restaurant Menu Labeling: Registration labeling requirements to opt instead for Certification that the information for Small Chains Under Section 4205 of the requirements of section 4205 of the submitted is true and accurate, that the the Patient Protection and Affordable Affordable Care Act. The information person or firm submitting it is Care Act of 2010—(OMB Control provided to FDA will help Federal, authorized to do so, and that each Number 0910–0664)—Extension State or local officials to determine registered restaurant or similar retail which jurisdiction’s requirements apply food establishment will be subject to the On March 23, 2010, the President requirements of section 4205. signed into law the Affordable Care Act to the firm. Information FDA requires on the (Pub. L. 111–148). Section 4205 of the Description of Respondents: registration form for vending machine legislation, which principally amends Respondents to this collection of operators includes the following: sections 403 (21 U.S.C. 343) and 403A information include retail food establishments and vending machine • (21 U.S.C. 343–1) of the Federal Food, The name, address, phone number, operators with fewer than 20 outlets or Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), e-mail address, and contact information machines. requires chain restaurants and similar for the vending machine operator; FDA’s July 23, 2010, notice requires • retail food establishments (SRFE) with The address of each vending that retail food establishments and machine owned or operated by the 20 or more locations, as well as vending machine operators register with operators of 20 or more vending vending machine operator, and the FDA using the Agency’s Form FDA 3757 name and contact information, machines, to disclose certain nutrition available at http://www.fda.gov/ information on certain food items including e-mail address, of the location menulabeling. FDA prefers that the in which each vending machine is offered for sale so that consumers can information be submitted by e-mail by make more informed choices about the located; typing complete information into the • Preferred mailing address (if food they purchase. Section 4205 form (PDF), saving it on the registrant’s different from location address), for preempts State and local governments computer, and sending it by e-mail to purposes of receiving correspondence; from establishing menu labeling http:// requirements in restaurants and calorie and [email protected]. If e- • declarations for food in vending mail is not available, the registrant can Certification that the information machines that are not ‘‘identical to’’ the either fill in the form (PDF) and print it submitted is true and accurate, that the section 4205 requirements. out (or print out the blank PDF and fill person or firm submitting it is In addition to restaurant menu and in the information by hand or authorized to do so, and that each vending machine labeling, section 4205 typewriter), and send it to FDA either by registered restaurant or similar retail of the Affordable Care Act provides that faxing the completed form to 301–436– food establishment will be subject to the persons or firms not subject to the 2804 or mailing it to the Center for Food requirements of section 4205 of the disclosure of nutrition information Safety and Applied Nutrition, Affordable Care Act. required by this legislation, such as Compliance Information Branch (HFS– In addition to the initial registration, restaurants with fewer than 20 locations 681), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD the authorized official must register or vending machine operators with 20857. every other year with FDA, and the fewer than 20 vending machines, may Information FDA requires on the registration will automatically expire if elect to be subject to the requirements registration form for restaurants and not renewed. provided in section 4205 by registering similar retail food establishments FDA estimates the burden of this biannually with FDA. As required by includes the following: collection of information as follows:

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1

Annual Hours per Type of respondent Number of frequency Total annual response Total hours respondents per response responses (average)

Restaurant initial ...... 103 1 103 2 206 Grocery initial ...... 167 1 167 2 334 C-store initial ...... 11 1 11 2 22 Other SRFE initial ...... 81 1 81 2 162

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1—Continued

Annual Hours per Type of respondent Number of frequency Total annual response Total hours respondents per response responses (average)

Total initial hours ...... 724 New registrations ...... 7 1 7 1 7 Re-registrations ...... 355 1 355 0 .25 89

Total recurring hours ...... 96 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

FDA estimates the reporting burden of because they are concerned about From the U.S. Census County this information collection to be 724 possible regulation, therefore, for the Business Patterns data, FDA estimates hours in the first year and 96 hours each purposes of this analysis we include that there are approximately 62,000 year thereafter. The registration burden chains with between 10 and 19 outlets, grocery stores in 2010. Of these, will be an ongoing, semiannual inclusive. The primary source of approximately 6,500 are ‘‘independents’’ reporting of firm contact and location potential registrants will be restaurant which means that they are part of chains information to FDA. FDA bases its per and specialty food chains, but there are with fewer than 11 outlets (Ref. 4), and respondent burden on the PRA analysis significant numbers of convenience 35,000 are known to belong to chains for section 415 of the FD&C Act (21 stores and grocery stores that prepare with more than 20 outlets (Ref. 5). We U.S.C. 350d) as laid out for the proposed food onsite and have a partial function round the remaining 20,523 outlets up rule entitled ‘‘Registration of Food as a take-away, or quick-service, to 21,000 to account for those outlets in Facilities Under the Public Health restaurant. In addition, small chains of chains with 10 or 11 establishments. Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness similar retail food establishments that County Business Patterns show that 11.5 and Response Act of 2002’’ (68 FR 5378, operate in retail, hotel, corporate, percent of all grocery stores are in February 3, 2003) (Ref. 1). FDA educational, military or entertainment jurisdictions that have relevant menu estimates that the initial collection of settings may want to register. labeling regulations. Taking 11.5 the information, and presentation of it percent of 21,000 yields approximately Because the statute preempts State in a format that will meet the Agency’s 2,400 stores run by 167 firms. The and local regulations on vending registration regulations, will require a hourly burden for grocery chains is 334 machine labeling, no vending machine burden of approximately 2 hours per hours (= 167 chains × 1 responses/ operators will have an incentive to registration for the first year because the chain/year × 2 hours/response). register. Therefore, FDA estimates that registration system will not be fully According to Stagnito Media, there zero vending machine operators will automated. are 144,000 convenience store outlets in register with FDA under section 4205 of FDA estimates that renewal the United States (Ref. 6). Of these, the Affordable Care Act. registrations after the first year will 64,000 are defined as very small ‘‘mom require substantially less time because According to The NPD Group’s Spring and pop’’ locations. Approximately firms are expected to be able to affirm 2010 ReCount report, there were 60,000 outlets are controlled by 1 of the or edit the existing information in an 579,416 sole purpose eating and top 100 chains, each having at least 65 online account in a way similar to other drinking establishments in the United outlets (Ref. 7). Of the remaining 20,000, FDA firm registration systems. States in the winter of 2010 (Ref. 2). Of FDA estimates that half fall in the 10 to Therefore, FDA estimates that re- these, 40 percent will be explicitly 19 outlet range. From County Business registration will take 0.25 hours for each subject to FDA rulemaking for the Patterns (Ref. 3), 1.6 percent of all registrant. Because there will be entry Affordable Care Act because they are convenience store outlets are in a and exit from this set of firms, there will part of chains with 20 or more outlets jurisdiction with a local or State menu also be new registrations once the (Ref. 2). Of the remaining 350,000 labeling regulation that does not system is fully operational. FDA outlets, only those that would be subject explicitly exempt convenience stores. estimates that initial registration under to local or State rules concerning menu FDA estimates that approximately 160 the fully operational system will take 1 labeling would have any incentive to convenience store outlets from 11 firms hour. register. Approximately 7.5 percent of may have an incentive to register under The pool of potential registrants will restaurant outlets are in States or this notice. The hourly burden for be restaurants and SRFEs with outlets in localities with currently operational convenience store chains is 22 hours jurisdictions that have their own menu menu labeling regulation, principally (= 11 chains × 1 responses/chain/year labeling regulations and that are not New York City, Oregon, Philadelphia, × 2 hours/response). explicitly regulated under section 4205 and some New York State counties (Ref. Additional covered establishments, of the Affordable Care Act. Of the 3). NPD’s Spring 2010 ReCount report such as those in operating in lodging, existing State and local regulations, the shows a total of 20,000 outlets are part corporate, entertainment, and minimum number of outlets for which of chains with between 10 and 19 educational settings are often provided any of them currently apply is 15, and establishments. If outlets are evenly by very large firms with many hundreds section 4205 applies explicitly to firms distributed geographically, then 1,500 or thousands of outlets, and will thus be with 20 or more outlets. Therefore, only outlets and 103 restaurant firms may explicitly covered by section 4205 of the firms with between 15 and 19 outlets, have an incentive to register with FDA. Affordable Care Act rather than by the inclusive, have any explicit incentive to The hourly burden for restaurant chains registration provisions. FDA estimates register. However, chains with fewer is 206 hours (= 100 chains × 1 that an additional 81 firms, controlling outlets may choose to register, either responses/chain/year × 2 hours/ approximately 1,200 outlets may have because they are growing quickly, or response). an incentive to register. The hourly

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67981

burden for these additional chains is 5. Food Marketing Institute, Top U.S. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All 162 hours (= 81 chains × 1 responses/ Supermarket & Grocery Chains (by 2007 comments should be identified with the chain/year × 2 hours/response). grocery sales), http://www.fmi.org, 2008. docket number found in brackets in the If all of these restaurant and similar 6. Stagnito Media, ‘‘Directory of heading of this document. Convenience Stores: FAQ,’’ http:// retail food establishment chains choose FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to register with FDA, then FDA www.conveniencestores.com/faq.html, Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information estimates the number of firms accessed June 1, 2010. Management, Food and Drug 7. Longo, D. ‘‘Convenience Store registering in the first year would be Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50– News: Hot Top 100,’’ Convenience Store approximately 362 firms. At two hours 400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796– News, 45(10), pp. 27–32, August 10, per registration, the total initial hourly 3794, 2009. burden will then be 724 hours (= 362 [email protected]. firms × 2 hours/firm). Dated: October 29, 2010. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA estimates that the rate of growth Leslie Kux, Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal for chains entering the 10 to 19 outlet Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. agencies must obtain approval from segment will match the rate of growth [FR Doc. 2010–27854 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] out of this segment, so that the number OMB for each collection of information BILLING CODE 4160–01–P ‘‘ of registrants will remain constant. they conduct or sponsor. Collection of ’’ County Business Patterns data shows an information is defined in 44 U.S.C. average growth rate in the number of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and establishments to be 2 percent per year HUMAN SERVICES includes Agency requests or over the 8 years from 1999 to 2007 for requirements that members of the public restaurants (Ref. 3). If the restaurant Food and Drug Administration submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section growth rate for outlets of approximately [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0543] 2 percent per year applies to these 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies chains, then new registrants will Agency Information Collection to provide a 60-day notice in the amount to approximately 7 per year, Activities; Proposed Collection; Federal Register concerning each with the remaining 355 registrants only Comment Request; Importer’s Entry proposed collection of information, renewing their registration. The yearly Notice burden for registration is estimated to be including each proposed revision of an 1 hour per new registrant. Thus, the AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, existing collection of information, total hour burden will be 7 hours (7 HHS. before submitting the collection to OMB firms × 1 hour/firm). The yearly burden ACTION: Notice. for approval. To comply with this for renewing registration is estimated to requirement, FDA is publishing notice SUMMARY: The Food and Drug be 0.25 hour per continuing registrant. of the proposed collection of Administration (FDA) is announcing an Thus, the total hour burden will be 89 information set forth in this document. opportunity for public comment on the hours (355 firms × 0.25 hour/firm = With respect to the following proposed collection of certain 88.75, rounded to 89). This yields a collection of information, FDA invites information by the Agency. Under the recurring hourly burden of 96 hours per comments on these topics: (1) Whether Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the year (7 hours + 89 hours). the proposed collection of information PRA), Federal agencies are required to is necessary for the proper performance II. References publish notice in the Federal Register of FDA’s functions, including whether concerning each proposed collection of the information will have practical The following references have been information, including each proposed placed on display in the Division of utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA’s revision of an existing collection of estimate of the burden of the proposed Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES), information, and to allow 60 days for and may be seen by interested persons collection of information, including the public comment in response to the validity of the methodology and between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday notice. This notice solicits comments on through Friday. (FDA has verified the assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the revision of an approved Office of the quality, utility, and clarity of the Web site addresses, but we are not Management and Budget (OMB) responsible for any subsequent changes information to be collected; and (4) collection of information for FDA’s ways to minimize the burden of the to the Web sites after this document Importer’s Entry Notice. This revision publishes in the Federal Register.) collection of information on reflects additional burden recognized as respondents, including through the use 1. Food and Drug Administration, a result of including tobacco products to of automated collection techniques, ‘‘Registration of Food Facilities Under the list of FDA-regulated products under when appropriate, and other forms of the Public Health Security and the Family Smoking Prevention and information technology. Bioterrorism Preparedness and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Response Act of 2002,’’ 68 FR 5378, Control Act). Information Request Regarding Importer’s Entry Notice—(OMB Control February 3, 2003. DATES: Submit either electronic or 2. The NPD Group, ‘‘Chains System written comments on the collection of Number 0910–0046)—Revision Size Trend Report for U.S. FDA,’’ information by January 3, 2011. On June 22, 2009, the President ReCount, Spring 2010. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic signed the Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 3. U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, County comments on the collection of 111–31) into law. The Tobacco Control Business Patterns, http:// information to http:// Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html, www.regulations.gov. Submit written and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding 2007, version date September 22, 2009. comments on the collection of a new chapter granting FDA important 4. Moran, M., J. McTaggart, and D. information to the Division of Dockets new authority to regulate the Chanil, ‘‘Looking Up, Cautiously,’’ Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug manufacture, marketing, and Progressive Grocer 89(3): 20–52, 2010. Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. distribution of tobacco products to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67982 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

protect the public health generally and admissibility decision for each entry, system is that all entry data passes to reduce tobacco use by minors. the Agency needed four additional through a screening criteria module, Section 801 of the FD&C Act, as pieces of information that were not which makes the initial screening amended by the Tobacco Control Act, available from USCS’s system. These decision on every entry of foreign-origin charges the Secretary of Health and data elements were the FDA Product FDA-regulated product. Almost Human Services (HHS), through the Code, FDA country of production, instantaneously after the entry is filed, FDA, with the responsibility of assuring manufacturer/shipper, and ultimate the filer receives FDA’s admissibility foreign origin FDA regulated foods, consignee. It was the ‘‘automated’’ decision covering each entry line, i.e., drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, collection of these four data elements ‘‘May Proceed’’ or ‘‘FDA Review.’’ radiological health, and tobacco for which OMB approval was being Examples of FDA’s need to further products offered for import into the requested. When this package was sent review an entry may result from some United States meet the same to OMB for approval, FDA construed products originating from a specific requirements of the FD&C Act as do this request as an extension of the prior country or manufacturer known to have domestic products, and for preventing approval of collection of this data via a a history of problems, FDA having no products from entering the country if different media, i.e., paper. FDA noted previous knowledge of the foreign they are not in compliance. The that there were additional data elements manufacturer and/or product, or a discharge of this responsibility involves which filers could provide to FDA along product import alert may have been close coordination and cooperation with other entry-related information. issued, etc. The system assists FDA between FDA (headquarters and field Doing so could result in their receiving entry reviewers by notifying them of inspectional personnel) and the U.S. an FDA admissibility decision more information, such as the issuance of Customs Service (USCS), as the USCS is expeditiously, e.g., the quantity, value, import alerts, thus averting the chance responsible for enforcing the revenue and Affirmation(s) of Compliance with that such information will be missed in laws covering the very same products. Qualifier(s). their review. This collection of information was At each U.S. port of entry (seaport, approved by OMB on August 10, 2009, landport, and airport) where foreign- Since the inception of the interface and received an expiration date of origin FDA-regulated products are with ACS, FDA’s electronic screening August 31, 2012 (ICR Reference Number offered for import, FDA is notified, criteria program is applied nationwide. 200905–0910–006). However, because through Custom’s Automated This eliminates problems such as ‘‘port tobacco products had only recently been Commercial System (ACS) by the shopping,’’ e.g., attempts to intentionally added to FDA’s listing of regulated importer (or his agent) of the arrival of slip products through one FDA port products when this collection of each entry. Following such notification, when refused by another, or filing information was approved, the FDA reviews relevant data to ensure the entries at a port known to receive a high approved collection did not reflect imported product meets the standards volume of entries. Every electronically information regarding tobacco products as are required for domestic products, submitted entry line of foreign-origin offered for import into and for makes an admissibility decision, and FDA-regulated product undergoes prevention from them from entering the informs the importer and USCS of its automated screening. The screening United States if they did not meet the decision. A single entry frequently criteria can be set to be as specific or as same requirements of the Act as contains multiple lines of different broad as applicable; changes are domestic products. The revision to this products. FDA may authorize products immediately effective. This capability is collection of information expands the listed on specific lines to enter the of tremendous value in protecting the universe of respondents being regulated United States unimpeded, while other public in the event there is a need to under the FD&C Act, as amended, to products in the same entry are to be immediately halt a specific product include importers of tobacco products. held pending further FDA review/ from entering the United States. In the most recent OMB approval of action. FDA estimates the revised reporting this information collection package, An important feature developed and burden for this collection of information FDA noted that in order to make an programmed into FDA’s automated is as follows:

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1

Annual FDA imported products Number of frequency per Total annual Hours per Total hours respondents response responses response

Non-Tobacco (approved by OMB 09/01/2009) ...... 3,406 1,089 3,709,134 .14 519,279 Tobacco (new estimated burden) ...... 200 68 13,600 .14 1,904

Total ...... 3,606 ...... 3,722,734 .28 521,183 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67983

Dated: October 25, 2010. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Leslie Kux, HUMAN SERVICES HUMAN SERVICES Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. Food and Drug Administration [FR Doc. 2010–27850 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Food and Drug Administration BILLING CODE 4160–01–P [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0536] [Docket No. FDA–2009–N–0098] Agency Information Collection DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; HUMAN SERVICES Activities; Announcement of Office of Comment Request, Guidance for Management and Budget Approval; Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Food and Drug Administration Evaluation of Potential Data Sources Submissions; Extension for the Sentinel Initiative AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0190] HHS. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, ACTION: Notice. Agency Information Collection HHS. Activities; Announcement of Office of ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Management and Budget Approval; Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the Infant Formula Requirements SUMMARY: The Food and Drug proposed collection of certain Administration (FDA) is announcing AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, information by the agency. Under the that a collection of information entitled Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the HHS. ‘‘ Evaluation of Potential Data Sources for PRA), Federal agencies are required to ACTION: Notice. the Sentinel Initiative’’ has been publish notice in the Federal Register approved by the Office of Management concerning each proposed collection of SUMMARY: The Food and Drug and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork information, including each proposed Administration (FDA) is announcing Reduction Act of 1995. extension of an existing collection of that a collection of information entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information, and to allow 60 days for ‘‘ ’’ Infant Formula Requirements has been Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information public comment in response to the approved by the Office of Management Management, Food and Drug notice. This notice solicits comments on and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50– the information collection resulting Reduction Act of 1995. 400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796– from recommendations to sponsors submitting or holding investigational FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 3794, new drug applications (INDs), new drug [email protected]. Johnny Vilela, Office of Information applications (NDAs), or biologic Management, Food and Drug SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the licensing applications (BLAs) on what Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50– pharmacogenomic data should be 400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796– Federal Register of September 4, 2009 (74 FR 45858), the agency announced submitted to the agency during the drug 7651, e-mail: development process. [email protected]. that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review DATES: Submit either electronic or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An written comments on the collection of Federal Register of August 10, 2010 (75 agency may not conduct or sponsor, and information by January 3, 2011. FR 48350), the Agency announced that a person is not required to respond to, ADDRESSES: Submit electronic the proposed information collection had a collection of information unless it comments on the collection of been submitted to OMB for review and displays a currently valid OMB control information to http:// clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An number. OMB has now approved the www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the collection of Agency may not conduct or sponsor, information collection and has assigned information to the Division of Dockets and a person is not required to respond OMB control number 0910–0657. The Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug to, a collection of information unless it approval expires on February 28, 2013. Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. A copy of the supporting statement for displays a currently valid OMB control 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All number. OMB has now approved the this information collection is available comments should be identified with the information collection and has assigned on the Internet at http:// docket number found in brackets in the OMB control number 0910–0256. The www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. heading of this document. approval expires on October 31, 2013. A Dated: October 25, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: copy of the supporting statement for this Leslie Kux, Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of information collection is available on Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. Information Management, Food and the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/ [FR Doc. 2010–27848 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., public/do/PRAMain. PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850, BILLING CODE 4160–01–P Dated: October 25, 2010. 301–796–3792, Leslie Kux, [email protected]. Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the [FR Doc. 2010–27849 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the BILLING CODE 4160–01–P Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67984 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) Guidance for Industry on other, less well-developed exploratory and includes agency requests or Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions tests. The submission of exploratory requirements that members of the public (OMB Control Number 0910–0557— pharmacogenomic data is not required submit reports, keep records, or provide Extension) under the regulations, although the information to a third party. Section The guidance provides agency encourages the voluntary 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. recommendations to sponsors submission of such data. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies submitting or holding INDs, NDAs, or The guidance describes the voluntary to provide a 60-day notice in the BLAs on what pharmacogenomic data genomic data submission (VGDS) that Federal Register concerning each should be submitted to the agency can be used for such a voluntary proposed collection of information, during the drug development process. submission. The guidance does not including each proposed extension of an Sponsors holding and applicants recommend a specific format for the existing collection of information, submitting INDs, NDAs, or BLAs are VGDS, except that such a voluntary submission be designated as a VGDS. before submitting the collection to OMB subject to FDA requirements for The data submitted in a VGDS and the for approval. To comply with this submitting to the agency data relevant to level of detail should be sufficient for requirement, FDA is publishing notice drug safety and efficacy (§§ 312.22, 312.23, 312.31, 312.33, 314.50, 314.81, FDA to be able to interpret the of the proposed collection of information and independently analyze information set forth in this document. 601.2, and 601.12). The guidance interprets FDA the data, verify results, and explore With respect to the following regulations for IND, NDA, or BLA possible genotype-phenotype collection of information, FDA invites submissions, clarifying when the correlations across studies. FDA does comments on these topics: (1) Whether regulations require pharmacogenomics not want the VGDS to be overly the proposed collection of information data to be submitted and when the burdensome and time-consuming for the is necessary for the proper performance submission of such data is voluntary. sponsor. of FDA’s functions, including whether The pharmacogenomic data submissions FDA has estimated the burden of the information will have practical described in the guidance that are preparing a voluntary submission utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA’s required to be submitted to an IND, described in the guidance that should be estimate of the burden of the proposed NDA, BLA, or annual report are covered designated as a VGDS. Based on FDA’s collection of information, including the by the information collection experience with this guidance over the validity of the methodology and requirements under parts 312, 314, and past few years, and on FDA’s familiarity assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance 601 (21 CFR parts 312, 314, and 601) with sponsors’ interest in submitting the quality, utility, and clarity of the and are approved by OMB under control pharmacogenomic data during the drug information to be collected; and numbers 0910–0014 (part 312—INDs); development process, FDA estimates that approximately seven sponsors will (4) ways to minimize the burden of the 0910–0001 (part 314—NDAs and annual submit approximately one VGDS and collection of information on reports); and 0910–0338 (part 601— BLAs). that, on average, each VGDS will take respondents, including through the use The guidance distinguishes between approximately 50 hours to prepare and of automated collection techniques, pharmacogenomic tests that may be submit to FDA. when appropriate, and other forms of considered valid biomarkers appropriate FDA estimates the burden of this information technology. for regulatory decision-making, and collection of information as follows:

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1

Annual Number of frequency Total annual Hours per respondents per responses response Total hours response

Voluntary Genomic Data Submissions Total ...... 7 1 7 50 350 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

Dated: October 29, 2010. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND for the notice of public meeting entitled Leslie Kux, HUMAN SERVICES Generic Drug User Fee; Public Meeting; Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. Request for Comments, published in the Food and Drug Administration [FR Doc. 2010–27847 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Federal Register of August 9, 2010 (75 BILLING CODE 4160–01–P FR 47820). In that notice, FDA [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0381] announced a public meeting that took Generic Drug User Fee; Notice of place on September 17, 2010, to gather Public Meeting; Reopening of the stakeholder input on the development Comment Period of a generic drug user fee program. FDA is reopening the comment period to AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, permit public consideration of late- HHS. received comments and to provide an ACTION: Notice; reopening of the opportunity for all interested parties to comment period. provide information and share views on the matter. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening until DATES: Submit either electronic or December 6, 2010, the comment period written comments by December 6, 2010.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67985

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. MRS spectrum data. The method may comments to http:// and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. also include providing raw MRS www.regulations.gov. Submit written Dated: October 29, 2010. spectrum data, recalibrating the raw comments to the Division of Dockets David Dorsey, MRS spectrum data, and scaling the Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug recalibrated MRS spectrum data by Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. Planning and Budget. using a plurality of weighting constants 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. to generate a preprocessed MRS [FR Doc. 2010–27824 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: spectrum data. BILLING CODE 4160–01–P Peter C. Beckerman, Office of Policy, Applications Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. • MRI Imaging. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND • 4238, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, HUMAN SERVICES Brain Imaging. 301–796–4830, Fax: 301–847–3541, E- • Neurology. mail: [email protected]. National Institutes of Health Inventors: Jon G. Wilkes (FDA/NCTR), SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dan A. Buzatu (FDA/NCTR), Pierre Government-Owned Inventions; Alusta (FDA/NCTR), Bruce A. Pearce I. Background Availability for Licensing (FDA/NCTR), Richard Beger (FDA/ In the Federal Register of August 9, NCTR), Inessa Im (FDA/NCTR). AGENCY: 2010 (75 FR 47820), FDA published a National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS. Patent Status: U.S. Provisional notice of a public meeting on the Application No. 61/261,170 filed 13 ACTION: Notice. development of a generic drug user fee Nov 2009 (HHS Reference No. E–298– program. In that notice, FDA posed SUMMARY: The inventions listed below 2009/0–US–01). several questions related to a user fee for are owned by an agency of the U.S. Licensing Status: Available for human generic drugs, and sought public Government and are available for licensing. input on such a program. The Agency licensing in the U.S. in accordance with Licensing Contact: Michael A. received submissions and presentations 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious Shmilovich, Esq.; 301–435–5019; from the public meeting, which are now commercialization of results of [email protected]. posted on FDA’s Web site. Some Federally-funded research and Collaborative Research Opportunity: submissions arrived after the formal development. Foreign patent The FDA National Center for closing of the docket and FDA has applications are filed on selected Toxicological Research is seeking decided to reopen the docket to permit inventions to extend market coverage statements of capability or interest from public input on all the submissions. parties interested in collaborative Interested persons were originally for companies and may also be available research to further develop, evaluate, or given until October 17, 2010, to for licensing. commercialize FDA’s magnetic comment on the development of a ADDRESSES: Licensing information and resonance spectroscopy technology in generic drug user fee program. FDA is copies of the U.S. patent applications now reopening the docket to permit listed below may be obtained by writing various imaging and diagnostic comment until December 6, 2010. to the indicated licensing contact at the applications. Please contact Alice Y. Office of Technology Transfer, National Welch, PhD at 301–796–8449 or II. Request for Comments Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive [email protected] for more Following publication of the August Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, information. 9, 2010, meeting notice and request for Maryland 20852–3804; telephone: 301/ Cancer-Linked Sequences Encoding the comment, FDA received a request to 496–7057; fax: 301/402–0220. A signed A2BP1/FOX1 Gene allow interested persons additional time Confidential Disclosure Agreement will to comment. The requester asserted that be required to receive copies of the Description of Invention: the time period of 30 days was patent applications. Mesothelioma is a rare type of cancer in insufficient to respond fully to FDA’s which malignant cells are found in the System for Magnetic Resonance specific requests for comments and to lining of the chest or abdomen. Spectroscopy of Brain Tissue for allow potential respondents to Symptoms are frequently misdiagnosed Pattern-Based Diagnostics thoroughly evaluate and address and an accurate diagnosis generally pertinent issues. In light of this request, Description of Invention: Available for does not occur until advanced stages, and the arrival of late submitted licensing and commercial development and patients live on average nine to comments, FDA is reopening the is a system for preprocessing magnetic thirteen months after an accurate comment period for an additional 30 resonance spectroscopy (MRS) data of diagnosis. To date, there are no effective days. brain tissue for pattern-based systemic treatments. diagnostics. The MRS preprocessing Researchers at the National Cancer III. How To Submit Comments system includes an MRS preprocessing Institute, NIH, have identified a Regardless of attendance at the public module that executes an operation that recurrent alteration in the DNA meeting, interested persons may submit normalizes MRS spectrum data, sequence for ataxin-2 binding protein to the Division of Dockets Management recalibrates and scales the normalized (A2BP1/FOX1) in human mesothelioma (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or MRS spectrum data, and then and colorectal cancers that is present in written comments regarding this renormalizes the scaled MRS spectrum at least twenty percent (20%) of cancer document. It is only necessary to send data. The resulting preprocessed MRS cell lines and primary tumor samples. one set of comments. It is no longer data is used to assist in identifying The sequence is not present in normal necessary to send two copies of mailed abnormalities in tissues shown in MRS tissue, proving that it has arisen as an comments. Identify comments with the scans. Raw MRS spectrum data and acquired somatic mutation in cancer. docket number found in brackets in the scaling the raw MRS spectrum data is Furthermore, additional data suggests a heading of this document. Received achieved by a plurality of weighting possible role for the alteration in comments may be seen in the Division constants to generate a preprocessed neurological diseases such as autism,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67986 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

inherited mental retardation, and normally, the inventors’ have used this Inhibition of Cell Motility, Angiogenesis seizures. deletion to make room for insertion of and Metastasis This discovery offers a new approach a foreign gene. Thus, the inventors have Description of Invention: The present for the diagnosis and early detection of conceptualized and reduced to practice invention relates to potent, highly cancer. a new way to use the already-approved selective antagonists of Grb2 Src Applications: Development of assays rubella vaccine as a viral vector to homology-2 (SH2) domain binding. for detection, diagnosis, or prognosis of express the additional protein antigens Grb2, through its SH2 domain, mediates diseases associated with chromosomal of a second (or multiple other) viruses. growth factor driven cell motility in disruptions of the ataxin-2 binding This is highly advantageous because it vitro and angiogenesis in vivo. These protein 1 (A2BP1 or FOX1) gene, such allows for production of a live virus synthetic, small molecule antagonists as cancer and neurological disorders. vaccine when attenuation is not have been shown to block cell motility Development Status: Pre-clinical. possible for highly virulent viruses such Inventors: Frederic J. Kaye (NCI). stimulated by hepatocyte growth factor as HIV. (HGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), Relevant Publication: Beroukhim R et Furthermore, another advantage of al. The landscape of somatic copy- epidermal growth factor (EGF), and this vaccine is that virus titers in cell vascular endothelial cell growth factor number alteration across human culture reach one thousand (1000) cancers. Nature 2010 Feb 18; (VEGF). They also potently inhibit HGF- human doses per milliliter (ml) of and VEGF-stimulated morphogenesis 463(7283):899–905. [PubMed: culture supernatant. This is highly 20164920] and angiogenesis, respectively, in desirable for production of multiple several model systems. HGF stimulates Patent Status millions of doses for the developing mitogenesis, motogenesis and world. In the developed world, this • U.S. Provisional Application No. morphogenesis in a wide range of vaccine could be substituted for the 61/121,997 filed 12 Dec 2008 (HHS cellular targets during development and current vaccine at almost no cost and Reference No. E–180–2008/0–US–01). adulthood, and its signaling pathway is used to immunize against rubella plus • International Patent Application frequently over-activated in human the inserted antigen(s). Without No. PCT/US09/67502 filed 10 Dec 2009, cancers, including colon, gastric, breast, vaccination, the average age of which published as WO 2010/068757 lung, thyroid and renal carcinomas, becoming seropositive for rubella is on 17 Jun 2010 (HHS Reference No. E– melanoma, several sarcomas as well as approximately nine (9) years old. This 180–2008/0–PCT–02). glioblastoma. The ability of HGF to Licensing Status: Available for new vaccine could be given to one to initiate a program of cell dissociation licensing. two year olds with a booster at nine and increased cell motility coupled with Licensing Contact: Patrick P. McCue, years old. Additionally, this vaccine is increased protease production promotes PhD; 301–435–5560; already approved, so the safe and aggressive cellular invasion and is [email protected]. immunogenic doses are already known. frequently linked to tumor metastasis. Metastasis, the primary cause of death Insertion of Foreign Genes in Rubella Applications in most forms of cancer, is a multistep Virus and Their Stable Expression in a • Vaccines for the prevention of process whereby cells from the primary Live, Attenuated Viral Vaccine rubella and other indications. tumor spread systemically and colonize • Description of Invention: Rubella Use of rubella vector for expression distant new sites. Blocking critical steps virus (RUB) is the only member of the of foreign genes. in this process could potentially inhibit Rubivirus genus of the family Advantages tumor metastasis and dramatically Togaviridae. The RUB genomic RNA is • improve cancer survival rates. The a single-stranded, 9762-nt, positive- Novel vaccine candidate • small, synthetic Grb2 SH2 domain sense RNA that contains two long open Rapid production time antagonists described in this invention reading frames (ORFs): A 5′-proximal Development Status: Preclinical have been shown to inhibit the induced ORF which encodes nonstructural studies have been conducted by the and spontaneous metastasis of proteins (NSP) that function primarily inventors. melanoma- and prostate cancer-derived in viral RNA replication, including the Inventors: Ira Berkower and Angelo tumor cells in mice. These results RdRp, and a 3′-proximal ORF which Spadaccini (FDA). establish a critical role for Grb2 SH2 encodes the virion structural proteins Patent Status domain-mediated interactions in the (SP), the capsid protein (C), and two metastatic process and support the • envelope glycoproteins, E1 and E2. The U.S. Provisional Application No. potential efficacy of this class of genomic RNA serves as a template for 61/252,568 filed 16 Oct 2009 (HHS compound in reducing the metastatic synthesis of a complementary minus- Reference No. E–156–2008/0–US–01). spread of primary solid tumors in • strand RNA which is the template for International Patent Application humans. synthesis of both the genomic RNA and No. PCT/US2010/052948 filed 15 Oct Applications and Modality: Inhibition the subgenomic (SG) RNA, from which 2010 (HHS Reference No. E–156–2008/ of cell motility-dependent processes, the structural proteins are translated. 0–PCT–02). including angiogenesis and metastasis, All earlier efforts at expressing foreign Relevant Publication: Spadaccini A, in several types of cancer such as genes in rubella virus failed due to Vimik K, Ni Y, Prutzman K, Berkower prostate, colon, gastric, breast, lung, stability of the insert. The inventors I. Stable expression of a foreign protein thyroid and renal carcinomas, have found a way to insert foreign genes by a replication-competent rubella viral melanoma and various sarcomas. into rubella virus such that the foreign vector. Vaccine. 2010 Feb 3;28(5):1181– Development Status: In vivo and in genes can be expressed stably over 1187. [PubMed: 19945412]. vitro studies have been conducted on many passages of the virus. More Licensing Status: Available for this technology. specifically, based on an earlier licensing. observation that rubella virus can Licensing Contact: Peter A. Soukas, Market tolerate a small deletion in the J.D.; 301–435–4646; • Cancer is the second leading cause nonstructural genes and still replicate [email protected]. of death in the U.S.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67987

• The worldwide incidence of new peptidomimetics with high Grb2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND cancer patients is forecast to increase SH2 domain-binding affinity. In: HUMAN SERVICES from 4.2 million cases in the major Understanding Biology Using cancer markets in 2005 to 4.6 million in Peptides, Blondelle SE (Ed), Food and Drug Administration 2010. American Peptide Society, pp 208– • [Docket No. FDA–2009–D–0132] It is estimated that the worldwide 209, 2005. cancer marker will be worth 85.3 billion 7. Dharmawardana PG, Peruzzi B, Guidance for Industry: Cellular in 2010. Therapy for Cardiac Disease; Giubellino A, Burke TR Jr, Bottaro Inventors: Donald P. Bottaro et al. Availability (NCI). DP. Molecular targeting of growth factor receptor-bound 2 (Grb-2) as AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Relevant Publications an anti-cancer strategy. Anti-Cancer HHS. 1. Atabey N, Gao Y, Yao Z-J, Drugs 2006 Jan;17(1):13–20. ACTION: Notice. Breckenridge D, Soon L, Soriano JV, [PubMed: 16317285]. Burke TR Jr, Bottaro DP. Potent SUMMARY: 8. Liu F, Worthy KM, Bindu L, The Food and Drug blockade of Hepatocyte Growth Administration (FDA) is announcing the Giubellino A, Bottaro DP, Fisher RJ, Factor-stimulated cell motility, availability of a document entitled Burke TR Jr. Utilization of achiral matrix invasion and branching ‘‘Guidance for Industry: Cellular morphogenesis by antagonists of alkenyl amines for the preparation Therapy for Cardiac Disease’’ dated Grb2 Src homology 2 domain of high affinity Grb2 SH2 domain- October 2010. The guidance document interactions. J Biol Chem. 2001 Apr binding macrocycles by ring-closing provides sponsors who are developing 27;276(17):14308–14314. [PubMed: metathesis. Org Biomol Chem. 2007 cellular therapies for the treatment of 11278639]. Jan 21;5(2):367–372. [PubMed: cardiac disease with recommendations 2. Shi Z-D, Wei C-Q, Wang X, Lee K, Liu 17205182]. on the design of preclinical and clinical H, Zhang M, Vasselli J, Bottaro DP, 9. Giubellino A, Gao Y, Lee S, Lee M- studies and on the chemistry, Linehan WM, Yang D, Burke TR Jr. J, Vasselli JR, Medepalli S, Trepel manufacturing and controls (CMC) Macrocyclization in the design of JB, Burke TR Jr, Bottaro DP. information that should be included in tetra-tetrapeptide mimetics that Inhibition of tumor metastasis by a an investigational new drug application display potent inhibition of Grb2 growth factor receptor bound (IND) for cellular therapy for cardiac SH2 domain binding in whole cell protein Src domain-binding disease. The guidance announced in systems. In: Peptide Revolution: antagonist. Cancer Res. (Priority this notice finalizes the draft guidance Genomics, Proteomics Report) 2007 Jul 1;67(13):6012– entitled ‘‘Guidance for Industry: Somatic Therapeutics. Chorev, M and 6016. [PubMed: 17616655]. Cell Therapy for Cardiac Disease’’ dated Sawyer, TK, Eds. American Peptide March 2009. Society, pp 515–517, 2003. Patent Status: U.S. Patent Application DATES: Submit either electronic or 3. Soriano JV, Lui N, Gao Y, Yao Z-J, No. 11/525,672 filed 22 Sep 2006 (HHS written comments on agency guidances Ishibashi T, Underhill C, Burke TR Reference No. E–265–1999/2–US–01). at any time. Jr, Bottaro DP. Inhibition of Licensing Status: Available for ADDRESSES: angiogenesis by growth factor Submit written requests for receptor bound protein 2-Src licensing. single copies of the guidance to the homology 2 domain bound Licensing Contact: Jennifer Wong; Office of Communication, Outreach and antagonists. Mol Cancer Ther. 2004 301–435–4633; [email protected]. Development (HFM–40), Center for Oct;3(10):1289–1299. [PubMed: Biologics Evaluation and Research Collaborative Research Opportunity: (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 15486196]. The Urologic Oncology Branch of the 4. Shi Z-D, Karki RG, Worthy KM, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, National Cancer Institute is seeking Rockville, MD 20852–1448; or to the Bindu LK, Dharmawardana PG, statements of capability or interest from Nicklaus MC, Bottaro DP, Fisher RJ, Division of Small Manufacturers, parties interested in collaborative Burke TR Jr. Utilization of a International, and Consumer Assistance, research to further develop, evaluate, or nitrobenzoxadiazole (NBD) Center for Devices and Radiological fluorophore in the design of a Grb2 commercialize Grb2 SH2 domain Health, Food and Drug Administration, SH2 domain-binding peptide antagonists as anti-cancer drugs. Please 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, mimetic. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. contact John D. Hewes, Ph.D. at 301– rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993– 2005 Mar 1;15(5):1385–1388. 435–3121 or [email protected] for 0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive [PubMed: 15713392]. more information. label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be 5. Kang S-U, Shi, Z-D, Worthy KM, Dated: October 29, 2010. obtained by mail by calling CBER at Bindu LK, Dharmawardana PG, Richard U. Rodriguez, Choyke SJ, Bottaro DP, Fisher RJ, 1–800–835–4709 or 301–827–1800. See Burke TR Jr. Examination of Director, Division of Technology Development the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer, phosphoryl-mimicking for electronic access to the guidance National Institutes of Health. functionalities within a macrocyclic document. Grb2 SH2 domain-binding platform. [FR Doc. 2010–27912 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Submit electronic comments on the J Med Chem. 2005 Jun BILLING CODE 4140–01–P guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. 16;48(12):3945–3948. [PubMed: Submit written comments to the 15943469]. Division of Dockets Management (HFA– 6. Shi Z-D, Peruzzi B, Dharmawardana 305), Food and Drug Administration, PG, Leech T, Appella E, Worthy 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, KM, Bindu LK, Fisher RJ, Bottaro MD 20852. DP, Burke TR Jr. Synthesis and use FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of C-terminally biotinylated Benjamin A. Chacko, Center for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67988 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Biologics Evaluation and Research device exemption (IDE) regulations (21 Time: 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. (HFM–17), Food and Drug CFR part 812) have been approved Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, under OMB control number 0910–0078, applications. suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, and the informed consent regulations Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 301–827–6210; or Sabina Reilly, Center (21 CFR part 50) have been approved Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, for Devices and Radiological Health (Virtual Meeting). under OMB control number 0910–0130. Contact: Donald L. Schneider, PhD, (HFZ–450), Food and Drug III. Comments Scientific Review Officer, Center for Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Scientific Review, National Institutes of Rockville, MD 20850, 240–276–4095. Interested persons may submit to the Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5160, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Division of Dockets Management (see MSC 7842, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– ADDRESSES) either electronic or written 1727, [email protected]. I. Background comments regarding this document. It is Name of Committee: Center for Scientific FDA is announcing the availability of only necessary to send one set of Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member a document entitled ‘‘Guidance for comments. It is no longer necessary to Conflict: BST Member Conflict Review Panel. Industry: Cellular Therapy for Cardiac send two copies of mailed comments. Date: December 2, 2010. Disease,’’ dated October 2010. This Identify comments with the docket Time: 1:15 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. guidance document provides sponsors number found in brackets in the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant who are developing cellular therapies heading of this document. Received applications. for the treatment of cardiac disease with comments may be seen in the Division Place: National of Institutes of Health, 6701 recommendations regarding the: (1) Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. (Telephone Conference Call.) Design of preclinical and clinical and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Contact Person: Ping Fan, MD, PhD, studies, (2) CMC information that IV. Electronic Access Scientific Review Officer, Center for should be included in an IND for Scientific Review, National Institutes of cardiac cellular therapy, and (3) Persons with access to the Internet Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5154, information about the product’s delivery may obtain the guidance at http:// MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–408– system that should be submitted. This www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ 9971, [email protected]. guidance also includes a discussion of GuidanceComplianceRegulatory Name of Committee: Center for Scientific regulatory considerations regarding Information/Guidances/default.htm, Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member cellular delivery systems. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ Conflict: Behavioral and Social In the Federal Register of April 2, DeviceRegulationandGuidance/ Consequences of HIV/AIDS. 2009 (74 FR 14992), FDA announced the GuidanceDocuments/default.htm, or Date: December 3, 2010. availability of the draft guidance http://www.regulations.gov. Time: 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. ‘‘ Agenda: To review and evaluate grant entitled Guidance for Industry: Somatic Dated: October 22, 2010. Cell Therapy for Cardiac Disease’’ dated applications. Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 March 2009. FDA received several Leslie Kux, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, comments on the draft guidance and (Telephone Conference Call.) [FR Doc. 2010–27881 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] those comments were considered as the Contact Person: Jose H. Guerrier, PhD, guidance was finalized. In addition, BILLING CODE 4160–01–P Scientific Review Officer, Center for additional changes were made to Scientific Review, National Institutes of improve the document. The guidance Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5218, announced in this notice finalizes the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– draft guidance dated March 2009. HUMAN SERVICES 1137, [email protected]. The guidance is being issued Name of Committee: Center for Scientific consistent with FDA’s good guidance National Institutes of Health Review Special Emphasis Panel; Chromatin Insulators. practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). Center for Scientific Review; Notice of The guidance represents FDA’s current Date: December 7–8, 2010. Closed Meetings Time: 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. thinking on this topic. It does not create Agenda: To review and evaluate grant or confer any rights for or on any person Pursuant to section 10(d) of the applications. and does not operate to bind FDA or the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 public. An alternative approach may be amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, used if such approach satisfies the hereby given of the following meetings. (Virtual Meeting.) requirements of the applicable statutes The meetings will be closed to the Contact Person: Michael H. Chaitin, PhD, and regulations. public in accordance with the Scientific Review Officer, Center for provisions set forth in sections Scientific Review, National Institutes of II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5202, This guidance refers to previously as amended. The grant applications and MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– approved collections of information the discussions could disclose 0910, [email protected]. found in FDA regulations. These confidential trade secrets or commercial (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance collections of information are subject to property such as patentable material, Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, review by the Office of Management and and personal information concerning Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, individuals associated with the grant 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– applications, the disclosure of which Institutes of Health, HHS) 3520). The collections of information in would constitute a clearly unwarranted the IND regulations (21 CFR part 312) invasion of personal privacy. Dated: October 29, 2010. Jennifer S. Spaeth, have been approved under OMB control Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Director, Office of Federal Advisory number 0910–0014, the good laboratory Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Committee Policy. practice regulations (21 CFR part 58) Conflict: Biological Chemistry and have been approved under OMB control Macromolecular Biophysics. [FR Doc. 2010–27915 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] number 0910–0119, the investigational Date: December 2–3, 2010. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67989

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland concepts, are aware of their contribution HUMAN SERVICES Security, National Protection and to achieve a shared national goal, Programs Directorate, Office of participate in public-private National Institutes of Health Infrastructure Protection (IP), will partnerships, and are motivated to take submit the following Information action. However, IP has never National Institute of Arthritis and Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of conducted a comprehensive feedback Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Management and Budget (OMB) for assessment with the full range of its Notice of Closed Meeting review and clearance in accordance stakeholders to identify, measure, and Pursuant to section 10(d) of the with the Paperwork Reduction Act of improve the effectiveness of its efforts. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter IP desires to collect information from its 35). stakeholders in order to: amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is • hereby given of the following meeting. DATES: Comments are encouraged and Provide a baseline for the The meeting will be closed to the will be accepted until January 3, 2011. effectiveness of efforts to improve the This process is conducted in accordance security of the Nation’s infrastructure; public in accordance with the • provisions set forth in sections with 5 CFR 1320.1. Assist in validating and achieving 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., ADDRESSES: Written comments and IP’s strategic and mission area objectives; as amended. The grant applications and questions about this Information • the discussions could disclose Collection Request should be forwarded Obtain a better understanding of the confidential trade secrets or commercial to the Office of Infrastructure Protection, evolving infrastructure protection and property such as patentable material, Attn.: Michael Beland, resiliency requirements of IP’s and personal information concerning [email protected]. Written stakeholders; • Increase the visibility and individuals associated with the grant comments should reach the contact awareness of the critical infrastructure applications, the disclosure of which person listed no later than January 3, protection and resilience mission; would constitute a clearly unwarranted 2011. Comments must be identified by • Initiate the coordination and invasion of personal privacy. DHS–2010–0084 and may be submitted uniformity of outreach efforts by IP, Name of Committee: National Institute of by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// sector-specific agencies, and other Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin partners engaged in the infrastructure Diseases Special Emphasis Panel. Centers of www.regulations.gov. • E-mail: [email protected]. protection mission; and Research Translation Grant Review. • Collect feedback regarding event, Date: November 17–18, 2010. Include the docket number in the Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. subject line of the message. threat or service-specific activities in a Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Instructions: All submissions received timely fashion. applications. must include the words ‘‘Department of OMB is particularly interested in Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Homeland Security’’ and the docket comments which: Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. number for this action. Comments 1. Evaluate whether the proposed Contact: Michael L. Bloom, MBA, PhD, received will be posted without collection of information is necessary Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, for the proper performance of the Branch, NIAMS–NIH, 6701 Democracy Blvd, including any personal information functions of the agency, including Room 820, MSC 4872, Bethesda, MD 20892– whether the information will have 487, 301–594–4953, [email protected]. provided. practical utility; (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Homeland Security Act of 2002 and agency’s estimate of the burden of the Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, Homeland Security Presidential proposed collection of information, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Directive 7 (HSPD–7) call for the including the validity of the Dated: October 28, 2010. Department of Homeland Security methodology and assumptions used; Jennifer S. Spaeth, (DHS) to coordinate the overall effort to 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and Director, Office of Federal Advisory enhance the protection of the Nation’s clarity of the information to be Committee Policy. critical infrastructure and key resources. collected; and Specifically, HSPD–7 states DHS ‘‘shall [FR Doc. 2010–27913 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 4. Minimize the burden of the establish appropriate systems, BILLING CODE 4140–01–P collection of information on those who mechanisms, and procedures to share are to respond, including through the homeland security information relevant use of appropriate automated, to threats and vulnerabilities in national electronic, mechanical, or other DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND critical infrastructure and key resources technological collection techniques or SECURITY with other Federal departments and other forms of information technology, agencies, State and local governments, e.g., permitting electronic submissions [Docket No. DHS–2010–0084] and the private sector in a timely of responses. manner.’’ DHS designated IP to lead Agency Information Collection these efforts. Analysis Activities: Office of Infrastructure Given that the vast majority of the Protection; Infrastructure Protection Agency: Department of Homeland Nation’s critical infrastructure and key Security, National Protection and Stakeholder Input Project—Generic resources in most sectors are privately Clearance Programs Directorate. owned or controlled, IP’s success in Title: Office of Infrastructure AGENCY: National Protection and achieving the homeland security Protection Stakeholder Input Project— Programs Directorate, DHS. mission for critical infrastructure Generic Clearance. protection and resilience is dependent ACTION: 60-day notice and request for OMB Number: 1670–NEW. upon how well critical infrastructure comments; New Information Collection owners and operators and members of IP Stakeholder Input Project—Surveys Request: 1670–NEW. the general public understand the key Frequency: On occasion.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67990 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Affected Public: Private sector and U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an for the proper performance of non-Federal infrastructure protection Information Collection Request (ICR) Departmental functions. In particular, community. and Analysis to the Office of the Coast Guard would appreciate Number of Respondents: 5,980. Management and Budget (OMB) comments addressing: (1) The practical Estimated Time per Respondent: 40 requesting an extension of its approval utility of the collections; (2) the minutes. for the following collection of accuracy of the estimated burden of the Total Burden Hours: 3,056 annual information: 1625–0073, Alteration of collections; (3) ways to enhance the burden hours. Unreasonable Obstructive Bridges. quality, utility, and clarity of Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): Before submitting this ICR to OMB, the information subject to the collections; $0. Coast Guard is inviting comments as and (4) ways to minimize the burden of Total Burden Cost (operating/ described below. the collections on respondents, maintaining): $0. DATES: Comments must reach the Coast including the use of automated IP Stakeholder Input Project—Focus Guard on or before January 3, 2011. collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Groups ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate We encourage you to respond to this submissions to the docket [USCG–2010– Frequency: On occasion. request by submitting comments and 0981], please use only one of the Affected Public: Private sector and related materials. We will post all following means: non-Federal infrastructure protection comments received, without change, to (1) Online: http:// community. http://www.regulations.gov. They will www.regulations.gov. Number of Respondents: 260. include any personal information you Estimated Time per Respondent: 2 (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility provide. We have an agreement with (DMF) (M–30), U.S. Department of hours. DOT to use their DMF. Please see the Total Burden Hours: 520 annual Transportation (DOT), West Building ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. burden hours. Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 Submitting comments: If you submit a Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, comment, please include the docket $0. DC 20590–0001. number [USCG–2010–0981], indicate Total Burden Cost (operating/ (3) Hand Deliver: Same as mail the specific section of the document to maintaining): $0. address above, between 9 a.m. and which each comment applies, providing IP Stakeholder Input Project— 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except a reason for each comment. We Interviews Federal holidays. The telephone number recommend you include your name, is 202–366–9329. Frequency: On occasion. mailing address, an e-mail address, or (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. other contact information in the body of Affected Public: Private sector and The DMF maintains the public docket your document so that we can contact non-Federal infrastructure protection for this Notice. Comments and material you if we have questions regarding your community. received from the public, as well as submission. You may submit your Number of Respondents: 60. documents mentioned in this Notice as Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 comments and material by electronic being available in the docket, will means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF hour. become part of the docket and will be Total Burden Hours: 60 annual at the address under ADDRESSES; but available for inspection or copying at please submit them by only one means. burden hours. room W12–140 on the West Building Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): If you submit them by mail or delivery, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue submit them in an unbound format, no $0. SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. Total Burden Cost (operating/ larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, maintaining): $0. copying and electronic filing. If you except Federal holidays. You may also submit them by mail and would like to Dated: October 28, 2010. find the docket on the Internet at know that they reached the Facility, David Epperson, http://www.regulations.gov. please enclose a stamped, self-addressed Acting Chief Information Officer, National A copy of the ICR is available through postcard or envelope. We will consider Protection and Programs Directorate, the docket on the Internet at http:// all comments and material received Department of Homeland Security. www.regulations.gov. Additionally, a during the comment period and will [FR Doc. 2010–27827 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] copy is available from: Commandant address them accordingly. BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P (CG–611), Attn Paperwork Reduction Viewing comments and documents: Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Go to http://www.regulations.gov to 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington, view documents mentioned in this DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DC 20593–7101. Notice as being available in the docket. SECURITY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Enter the docket number for this Notice Arthur Requina, Office of Information Coast Guard [USCG–2010–0981] in the Search box, Management, telephone 202–475–3523, and click ‘‘Go >>.’’ You may also visit [USCG–2010–0981; Control Numbers: or fax 202–475–3929, for questions on the DMF in room W12–140 on the West 1625–0073] these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Wright, Program Manager, Docket Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between Information Collection Request to Operations, 202–366–9826, for 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Office of Management and Budget; questions on the docket. Friday, except Federal holidays. OMB SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Privacy Act: Anyone can search the AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. electronic form of all comments Public Participation and Request for received in dockets by the name of the ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting Comments comments. individual submitting the comment (or The Coast Guard invites comments on signing the comment, if submitted on SUMMARY: In compliance with the whether this ICR should be granted behalf of an association, business, labor Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the based on the collection being necessary union, etc.). You may review the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67991

Privacy Act statement regarding our 0978], please use only one of the related materials. We will post all public dockets in the January 17, 2008 following means: comments received, without change, to issue of the Federal Register (73 FR (1) Online: http:// http://www.regulations.gov. They will 3316). www.regulations.gov. include any personal information you (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility provide. We have an agreement with Information Collection Request (DMF) (M–30), U.S. Department of DOT to use their DMF. Please see the Title: Alteration of Unreasonable Transportation (DOT), West Building ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. Obstructive Bridges. Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 Submitting comments: If you submit a OMB Control Number: 1625–0073. New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, comment, please include the docket Summary: The collection of DC 20590–0001. number [USCG–2010–0978], indicate information is a request to determine if (3) Hand Deliver: Same as mail the specific section of the document to the bridge is unreasonably obstructive. address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 which each comment applies, providing Need: Sections 494, 502, 511, 513, p.m., Monday through Friday, except a reason for each comment. We 514, 515 516, 517, 521, 522, 523 and 524 Federal holidays. The telephone number recommend you include your name, of 33 U.S.C. authorize the Coast Guard is 202–366–9329. mailing address, an e-mail address, or to alter the bridges and causeways that (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. The DMF maintains the public docket other contact information in the body of go over navigable waters of the United your document so that we can contact States and deem to be unreasonably for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as you if we have questions regarding your obstructive. submission. You may submit your Forms: None. documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will comments and material by electronic Respondents: Public and private become part of the docket and will be means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF owners of bridges over navigable waters available for inspection or copying at at the address under ADDRESSES; but of the United States. room W12–140 on the West Building please submit them by only one means. Frequency: On occasion. Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, If you submit them by mail or delivery, Burden Estimate: The estimated SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. submit them in an unbound format, no burden remains the same at 240 hours 1 and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, larger than 8 ⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for a year. except Federal holidays. You may also copying and electronic filing. If you Dated: October 22, 2010. find the docket on the Internet at submit them by mail and would like to M.B. Lytle, http://www.regulations.gov. know that they reached the Facility, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant A copy of the ICR is available through please enclose a stamped, self-addressed Commandant for Command, Control, the docket on ythe Internet at http:// postcard or envelope. We will consider Communications, Computers and www.regulations.gov. Additionally, a all comments and material received Information Technology. copy is available from: Commandant during the comment period and will [FR Doc. 2010–27845 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] (CG–611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction address them accordingly. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Viewing comments and documents: 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington, Go to http://www.regulations.gov to DC 20593–7101. view documents mentioned in this DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Notice as being available in the docket. SECURITY Arthur Requina, Office of Information Enter the docket number for this Notice Management, telephone 202–475–3523, [USCG–2010–0978] in the Search box, Coast Guard or fax 202–475–3929, for questions on and click ‘‘Go >>.’’ You may also visit the DMF in room W12–140 on the West [USCG–2010–0978; Control Numbers: 1625– these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. 0008] Wright, Program Manager, Docket Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Operations, 202–366–9826, for Avenue, SE, Washington, DC, between 9 Information Collection Request to questions on the docket. a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Office of Management and Budget; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Friday, except Federal holidays. OMB Privacy Act: Anyone can search the Public Participation and Request for electronic form of all comments AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Comments received in dockets by the name of the ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting The Coast Guard invites comments on individual submitting the comment (or comments. whether this ICR should be granted signing the comment, if submitted on based on the collection being necessary behalf of an association, business, labor SUMMARY: In compliance with the for the proper performance of union, etc.). You may review the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Departmental functions. In particular, Privacy Act statement regarding our U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an the Coast Guard would appreciate public dockets in the January 17, 2008 Information Collection Request (ICR) comments addressing: (1) The practical issue of the Federal Register (73 FR and Analysis to the Office of utility of the collections; (2) the 3316). Management and Budget (OMB) accuracy of the estimated burden of the requesting a revision of its approval for Information Collection Request collections; (3) ways to enhance the the following collection of information: quality, utility, and clarity of Title: Regattas and Marine Parades. 1625–0008, Regattas and Marine information subject to the collections; OMB Control Number: 1625–0008. Parades. Before submitting this ICR to and (4) ways to minimize the burden of Summary: Title 46 U.S.C. 1233 OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting the collections on respondents, authorizes the Coast Guard to issue comments as described below. including the use of automated rules promoting safety of life on DATES: Comments must reach the Coast collection techniques or other forms of navigable waters during regattas or Guard on or before January 3, 2011. information technology. marine events. Title 33 CFR 100.17 and ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate We encourage you to respond to this 100.18 include the rules for providing submissions to the docket [USCG–2010– request by submitting comments and notice of, and additional information for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67992 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

permitting regattas/marine events to the instructions for submitting comments. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Coast Guard. (Note: This process applies to all URBAN DEVELOPMENT Need: The Coast Guard needs to government requests for comments— [Docket No. FR–5376–N–100] determine whether a marine event may even though as in the case of the PS– present a substantial threat to safety of Prep Program, they may not be for Notice of Proposed Information human life on navigable waters, and regulatory purposes.) Collection: Comment Request; HUD • which measures are necessary to ensure Fax: 703–483–2999. Stakeholder Survey safety of life during the events. Sponsors • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Office must notify via the most efficient means of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information for the Coast Guard to learn of the Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Officer, HUD. events/address environmental impacts. Room 840, Washington, DC 20472– ACTION: Notice. Forms: CG–4423. 3100. Respondents: Sponsors of marine All submissions received must SUMMARY: The proposed information events. include the agency name and Docket ID collection requirement described below Frequency: On occasion. FEMA–2008–0017. All submissions will will be submitted to the Office of Burden Estimate: The estimated be posted, without change, to the Management and Budget (OMB) for burden has increased from 3,000 to Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// review, as required by the Paperwork 5,271 hours a year. www.regulations.gov, and will include Reduction Act. The Department is Dated: October 22, 2010. any personal information you provide. soliciting public comments on the M. B. Lytle, Because comments are made available subject proposal. Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant to the public, submitters should take DATES: Comments Due Date: January 3, Commandant for Command, Control, caution to not include any sensitive, 2011. Communications, Computers and personal information, trade secret, or ADDRESSES: Interested persons are Information Technology. any commercial or financial information invited to submit comments regarding [FR Doc. 2010–27844 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] which is obtained from any person and this proposal. Comments should refer to BILLING CODE 9110–04–P which is deemed privileged or the proposal by name and/or OMB confidential. Submitters may wish to Control Number and should be sent to: read the Privacy Act notice available on Colette Pollard, Departmental Reports DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND the Privacy Notice link located at the Management Officer, QDAM, SECURITY bottom of http://www.regulations.gov. Department of Housing and Urban Docket: For access to the docket to Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Federal Emergency Management read background documents or Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410; Agency comments received, go to the Federal telephone: 202–402–5564, (this is not a [Docket ID FEMA–2008–0017] eRulemaking Portal at http:// toll-free number) or e-mail Ms. Pollard www.regulations.gov. Submitted at [email protected] for a copy Voluntary Private Sector Accreditation comments may also be inspected at of the proposed form and other available and Certification Preparedness FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 500 C information. Program Street, SW., Room 840, Washington, DC FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 20472–3100. AGENCY: Federal Emergency Francey Youngberg, Deputy Assistant Management Agency, DHS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban ACTION: Notice of closing date for public Marcus Pollock, National Integration Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., comments. Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, Room 10148, Washington, DC 20410; SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland DC 20472–3100; phone: 202–646–2801; telephone: (202) 402–6431, (this is not Security (DHS) published a notice in the e-mail: [email protected]. a toll-free number) or e-mail Ms. Federal Register on October 1, 2010, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Youngberg at requesting comments on an initial small October 1, 2010, DHS published a notice [email protected]. business plan to address small business in the Federal Register at 75 FR 60773 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The concerns in the Voluntary Private Sector announcing an initial plan to address Department will submit the proposed Accreditation and Certification small business concerns in the PS–Prep information collection to OMB for Preparedness Program (PS–Prep Program. That notice (1) presented the review, as required by the Paperwork Program). That notice did not contain a plan for small business preparedness, Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. closing date for the comment period. and (2) invited public comment on the Chapter 35, as amended). This notice provides a closing date. plan. However, the notice that This Notice is soliciting comments DATES: Submit comments on or before published on October 1, 2010 did not from members of the public and December 6, 2010. include a closing date for the affecting agencies concerning the ADDRESSES: DHS will review any submission of public comments. This proposed collection of information to: comments received for small business notice corrects that error by providing a (1) Evaluate whether the proposed considerations or the PS–Prep Program closing date of December 6, 2010 for the collection of information is necessary generally and, when merited, will submission of public comments. for the proper performance of the publish a Federal Register notice Authority: 6 U.S.C. 321m(b)(2)(D). functions of the agency, including providing the results of that review. whether the information will have Those interested may submit Dated: October 22, 2010. practical utility; (2) Evaluate the comments, identified by Docket ID W. Craig Fugate, accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the FEMA–2008–0017, by one of the Administrator, Federal Emergency burden of the proposed collection of following methods: Management Agency. information; (3) Enhance the quality, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// [FR Doc. 2010–27828 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] utility, and clarity of the information to www.regulations.gov. Follow the BILLING CODE 9111–46–P be collected; and (4) Minimize the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67993

burden of the collection of information collection consists of a brief, optional limited to) public housing authorities, on those who are to respond; including survey to be completed in person at the congressional members and staff, local through the use of appropriate end of each event. The information government officials, assisted housing automated collection techniques or produced by the stakeholder surveys residents, HUD grantees, civil rights other forms of information technology, will allow HUD to measure the organizations, homeless advocacy e.g., permitting electronic submission of effectiveness of the stakeholder sessions organizations, the legal community, responses. and collect feedback on policy academics, organized labor This Notice also lists the following initiatives. The information can be used representatives, HUD grantees, and information: to shape policies, improve stakeholder members of the housing, nonprofit, Title of Proposal: HUD Stakeholder events and make better use of HUD’s philanthropic, business and faith-based Survey. limited time with stakeholders. There sectors. OMB Control Number, if applicable: are no similar surveys which allow for 2501–New. HUD to engage in a sustained, Estimation of the total number of Description of the need for the systematic collection of feedback from hours needed to prepare the information information and proposed use: The stakeholders on of a broad range of HUD collection including number of Department of Housing and Urban initiatives and events. respondents, frequency of response, and Development (HUD) hosts events with a Agency form numbers, if applicable: hours of response: variety of groups nationwide designed None. Frequency of Submission: On to educate stakeholders about HUD Members of Affected Public: occasion. initiatives and policies. This data Stakeholder groups include (but are not

Number of Annual × Hours per respondents responses response = Burden hours

Reporting Burden ...... 3,150 1 0.1 315

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 315. Pulskamp, Bureau of Reclamation, Reclamation to produce an updated list Status of the proposed information Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 67, P.O. of facilities and sites best suited for collection: New collection. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225, or projects to increase sustainable Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork e-mail to [email protected]. hydropower generation by October Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, The Draft Report is also accessible 2010. The HRA provides information on as amended. from the following Web site: http:// potential hydropower development at Dated: October 28, 2010. www.usbr.gov/power/. existing Reclamation facilities that may Francey Youngberg, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. warrant further study. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Michael Pulskamp, 303–445–2931, The Draft Report does not make any Intergovernmental Affairs. [email protected]. recommendations for development of [FR Doc. 2010–27923 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The the sites included in the report. Instead, BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Administration is committed to it provides an inventory of hydropower increasing the generation of potential at existing Reclamation sites environmentally sustainable, affordable using broad energy and economic DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR hydropower for our national electricity criteria. Reclamation is not undertaking supplies. Reclamation has 476 dams and Bureau of Reclamation a new dam construction initiative with 8,116 miles of canals, and owns and this study, and is focused on identifying Hydropower Resource Assessment at operates 58 hydropower plants. On an the hydropower potential of Existing Reclamation Facilities—Draft annual basis, these plants produce an Reclamation’s existing structures. This Report average of 40 billion kilowatt hours of resource assessment level study does electricity, enough to meet the entire not take the place of a site by site AGENCIES: Bureau of Reclamation, electricity needs of over 9 million feasibility study. Interior. people on average, and provide the ACTION: Notice of availability of the draft energy equivalent of more than 80 Public Disclosure report. million barrels of crude oil or about 48.4 billion pounds of coal. Reclamation is Before including your name, address, SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation the second largest producer of phone number, e-mail address, or other has made available for public review hydroelectric power in the United personal identifying information in your and comment the ‘‘Hydropower States, and is actively engaged in comment, you should be aware that Resource Assessment at Existing looking for opportunities to encourage your entire comment—including your Reclamation Facilities’’ (HRA) Draft development of additional hydropower personal identifying information—may Report. The HRA is an assessment of the capacity. be made publicly available at any time. economic and technical potential for In March 2010 Reclamation signed a While you can ask us in your comment hydropower development at existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to withhold your personal identifying Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) with the Department of Energy and the information from public review, we owned non-powered dams and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The cannot guarantee that we will be able to structures. MOU focuses on ways to increase do so. DATES: Submit written comments on the renewable energy generation by Draft Report by December 6, 2010. focusing on development of sustainable, ADDRESSES: Send written comments or low impact, and small hydropower requests for copies to Mr. Michael projects. The MOU committed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67994 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Dated: October 26, 2010. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Ocean Energy proposals that relate to exploration, Dave Sabo, Management, Regulation and development, production, and transport Acting Director, Technical Resources, Bureau Enforcement (BOEMRE), in accordance of oil, gas, and mineral resources on the of Reclamation. with Federal Regulations that Federal OCS. These SEAs examine the [FR Doc. 2010–27908 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] implement the National Environmental potential environmental effects of BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P Policy Act (NEPA), announces the activities described in the proposals and availability of NEPA-related Site- present BOEMRE conclusions regarding Specific Environmental Assessments the significance of those effects. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (SEA) and Findings of No Significant Environmental Assessments are used as Impact (FONSI), prepared by BOEMRE a basis for determining whether or not The Bureau of Ocean Energy for the following oil-, gas-, and mineral- approval of the proposals constitutes a Management, Regulation and related activities proposed on the Gulf major Federal action that significantly Enforcement of Mexico. affects the quality of the human Environmental Documents Prepared FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: environment in accordance with NEPA for Proposed Oil, Gas, and Mineral Public Information Unit, Information Section 102(2)(C). A FONSI is prepared Operations by the Gulf of Mexico Outer Services Section at the number below. in those instances where BOEMRE finds Continental Shelf (OCS) Region Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, that approval will not result in Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of significant effects on the quality of the AGENCY: The Bureau of Ocean Energy Mexico OCS Region, Attention: Public human environment. The FONSI briefly Management, Regulation and Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 presents the basis for that finding and Enforcement, Interior. Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114, includes a summary or copy of the SEA. ACTION: Notice of the availability of New Orleans, Louisiana 70123–2394, or This notice constitutes the public environmental documents prepared for by calling 1–800–200–GULF. notice of availability of environmental OCS mineral proposals by the Gulf of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BOEMRE documents required under the NEPA Mexico OCS Region. prepares SEAs and FONSIs for Regulations.

Activity/operator Location Date

GOM Shelf, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–033 ...... Matagorda Island, Block 588, Lease OCS–G 18782, located 4/2/2010 18 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy XXI GOM, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– West Cameron, Block 248, Lease OCS–G 09048, located 44 4/2/2010 027. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Shell Offshore, Inc., Initial Exploration Plan, SEA S–7357 ...... De Soto Canyon Blocks 353 & 397 & Mississippi Canyon 4/5/2010 Block 393, located 78 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline, 112 miles from the nearest Mississippi shoreline, 113 miles from the nearest Alabama shoreline and 119 miles from the nearest Florida shoreline. Ridgelake Energy, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– Eugene Island, Block 324, Lease OCS–G 26041, located 96 4/6/2010 019. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Helis Oil & Gas Company, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/ Eugene Island, Block 44, Lease OCS–G 19784, located 20 4/6/2010 SR 10–020 & 10–021. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. GOM Shelf, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–040 ...... Grand Isle, Block 48, Lease OCS–G 00134, located 15 miles 4/6/2010 from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. GOM Shelf, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–026 ...... Matagorda Island, Block 586, Lease OCS–G 14791, located 4/6/2010 24 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Hilcorp Energy GOM, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR Ship Shoal, Block 209, Lease OCS–G 00827, located 34 4/6/2010 10–049. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Apex Oil & Gas, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–050 West Cameron, Block 442, Lease OCS–G 25914, located 80 4/7/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Apex Oil & Gas, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–051 West Cameron, Block 473, Lease OCS–G 15095, located 76 4/7/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA East Cameron, Block 265, Lease OCS–G 02392, located 70 4/9/2010 ES/SR 10–056. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Apache Corporation, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 08–012A High Island, Block A 572, Lease OCS–G 02392, located 118 4/9/2010 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Helis Oil & Gas Company, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/ High Island, Block A 64, Lease OCS–G 26513, located 31 4/9/2010 SR 10–018. miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Energy XXI GOM, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– West Cameron, Block 238, Lease OCS–G 02834, located 44 4/9/2010 036. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Merit Energy Company, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– High Island, Block 138, Lease OCS–G 09079, located 20 4/15/2010 043. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Merit Energy Company, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– High Island, Blocks 38 & 39, Leases OCS–G 14878 & 04078, 4/16/2010 047 & 10–048. located 12 & 14 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Reservoir Geophysical Corporation, Geological & Geophysical Located in the Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf ...... 4/16/2010 Notice of Scientific Research, SEA NG10–004. Dynamic Offshore Resources NS, LLC, Structure Removal, Matagorda Island, Blocks 605 & 606, Leases OCS–G 07199 4/16/2010 SEA ES/SR 10–053, 10–054 & 10–055. & 07200, located 20 & 21 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. GOM Shelf LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–030, 10– Matagorda Island, Blocks 633 & 634, Leases OCS–G 06042 4/16/2010 031 & 10–032. & 07202, located 15 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–057 South Timbalier, Block 24, Lease OCS–G 00387, located 6 4/16/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67995

Activity/operator Location Date

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation, Revised Exploration Plan, SEA Ewing Bank, Block 834, Lease OCS–G 27982, located in the 4/19/2010 R–5035 AA. Central Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico, 70 miles offshore, south of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. BHP Billiton Petroleum (GOM), Inc., Revised Exploration Plan, Green Canyon, Block 817, Lease OCS–G 31753, located in 4/19/2010 SEA R–5033 AA. the Central Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico, 130 miles offshore, south of Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR High Island, Block A471, Lease OCS–G 02690, located 96 4/19/2010 09–041. miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR High Island, Block A–471, Lease OCS–G 02690, located 96 4/21/2010 09–040A. miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Revised Exploration Plan, Mississippi Canyon, Block 252, Lease OCS–G 32306, located 4/24/2010 SEA R–5038 AA. in the Central Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico, 48 miles offshore, south of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC, Structure Removal SEA ES/SR 09– East Cameron, Block 286, Lease OCS–G 02051, located 84 4/26/2010 046. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–060 Bay Marchand, Block 2, Lease OCS–G 00369, located 4 4/27/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Merit Energy Company, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 08– Mustang Island, Block 785, Lease OCS–G 08975, located 28 4/27/2010 108A. miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Merit Energy Company, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 08– Mustang Island, Block 672, Lease OCS–G 10198, located 27 4/28/2010 109A. miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. GOM Shelf LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–037 ...... West Delta, Block 70, Lease OCS–G 00182, located 19 miles 4/28/2010 from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. GOM Shelf, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–038 ...... West Delta, Block 70, Lease OCS–G 00182, located 23 miles 4/28/2010 from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. GOM Shelf, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–039 ...... West Delta, Block 71, Lease OCS–G 00838, located 23 miles 4/28/2010 from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Wild Well Control, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– West Delta, Block 69, Lease OCS–G 00181, located 23 miles 4/30/2010 065. from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Merit Energy Company, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 08– Matagorda Island, Block 682, Lease OCS–G 05171, located 5/3/2010 114A. 20 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Arena Offshore, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–052 Brazos, Block A–66, Lease OCS–G 06088, located 164 miles 5/4/2010 from the nearest Texas shoreline. Energy XXI GOM, LLC, Well Conductor Removal, SEA APM Ewing Bank, Block 948, Lease OCS–G 26226, located 70 5/4/2010 EW948–SS001. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Noble Energy, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 09–110A, Main Pass, Blocks 305 & 306, Leases OCS–G 01676 & 5/6/2010 09–111A & 09–112A. 01677, located 26 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Hunt Oil Company, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–063 .... South Timbalier, Block 196, Lease OCS–G 19829, located 43 5/13/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. XTO Offshore, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–059 ... Eugene Island, Block 286, Lease OCS–G 00993, located 75 5/18/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. XTO Offshore, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 92–045A Eugene Island, Block 286, Lease OCS–G 00993, located 75 5/18/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy XXI GOM, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– Ship Shoal, Block 52, Lease OCS–G 24916, located 13 miles 5/20/2010 061. from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. XTO Offshore, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–058 ... Eugene Island, Block 309, Lease OCS–G 00997, located 75 5/21/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Cronus Offshore, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 89–052 Brazos, Block A22, Lease OCS–G 03937, located 35 miles 5/24/2010 B. from the nearest Texas shoreline. Maritech Resources, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– High Island, Block A–568, Lease OCS–G 02716, located 110 5/24/2010 017. miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR Ship Shoal, Block 157, Lease OCS–G 08709, located 30 5/24/2010 10–069. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR West Cameron, Block 118, Lease OCS–G 00757, located 17 5/24/2010 10–070, 10–071, 10–072 & 10–073. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10– High Island, Block A–520, Lease OCS–G 24416, located 98 5/25/2010 082. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Apache Corporation, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–079 Mustang Island, Block 787, Lease OCS–G 11221, located 26 5/25/2010 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR Ship Shoal, Block 145, Lease OCS–G 01014, located 23 5/25/2010 10–068. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Stone Energy Corporation, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR South Timbalier, Block 102, Lease OCS–G 26092, located 26 5/25/2010 10–080. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Gryphon Exploration Company, Structure Removal, SEA ES/ West Cameron, Block 567, Lease OCS–G 24768, located 100 5/25/2010 SR 10–083. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Apache Corporation, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–041 Matagorda Island, Block 623, Lease OCS–G 03088, located 5/26/2010 & 10–042. 15 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Truckline Gas Company, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR Ship Shoal, Block 274, Lease OCS–G 01852, located 62 5/27/2010 10–089. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. GOM Shelf LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–038A ..... West Delta, Block 70, Lease OCS–G 00182, located 23 miles 5/27/2010 from the nearest Louisiana Shoreline.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67996 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Activity/operator Location Date

Shell Offshore, Inc., Geological & Geophysical Prospecting for Located in the Central Gulf of Mexico South of Morgan City, 5/27/2010 Mineral Resources, SEA L10–027. Louisiana.

Persons interested in reviewing ACTION: Notice of the Availability of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BOEMRE environmental documents for the Environmental Documents Prepared for prepares SEAs and FONSIs for proposals listed above or obtaining OCS Mineral Proposals by the Gulf of proposals that relate to exploration, information about SEAs and FONSIs Mexico OCS Region. development, production, and transport prepared by the Gulf of Mexico OCS of oil, gas, and mineral resources on the Region are encouraged to contact SUMMARY: The Bureau of Ocean Energy Federal OCS. These SEAs examine the BOEMRE at the address or telephone Management, Regulation and potential environmental effects of listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Enforcement (BOEMRE), in accordance activities described in the proposals and CONTACT section. with Federal Regulations that present BOEMRE conclusions regarding Dated: August 11, 2010. implement the National Environmental whether those effects have significant John Rodi, Policy Act (NEPA), announces the impacts. Environmental Assessments Deputy Regional Director, Gulf of Mexico OCS availability of NEPA-related Site- are used to evaluate impacts and assist Region. Specific Environmental Assessments in determining whether or not approval [FR Doc. 2010–27805 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] (SEA) and Findings of No Significant of the proposals constitutes a major BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P Impact (FONSI), prepared by BOEMRE Federal action that significantly affects for the following oil-, gas-, and mineral- the quality of the human environment related activities proposed on the Gulf under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. A DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR of Mexico. FONSI is prepared in those instances Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: where BOEMRE finds that approval will Regulation and Enforcement Public Information Unit, Information not result in significant effects on the Services Section at the number below. quality of the human environment. The Environmental Documents Prepared Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, FONSI briefly presents the basis for that for Proposed Oil, Gas, and Mineral Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of finding and includes a summary or copy Operations by the Gulf of Mexico Outer Mexico OCS Region, Attention: Public of the SEA. This notice constitutes the Continental Shelf (OCS) Region Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 public notice of availability of AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114, environmental documents required Management, Regulation and New Orleans, Louisiana 70123–2394, or under the NEPA Regulations. Enforcement, Interior. by calling 1–800–200–GULF.

Activity/operator Location Date

Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, West Cameron, Block 405, Lease OCS–G 23631, located 68 1/6/2010 SEA ES/SR 00–066A. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, East Cameron, Block 140, Lease OCS–G 25950, located 45 1/7/2010 SEA ES/SR 07–016A. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, South Marsh Island, Block 35, Lease OCS–G 21614, located 1/7/2010 SEA ES/SR 09–228. 40 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Helis Oil & Gas Company, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/ West Cameron, Block 43, Lease OCS–G 16107, located 6 1/7/2010 SR 08–163A. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Virgin Offshore, USA, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR High Island, Block 198, Lease OCS–G 17151, located 32 1/8/2010 10–002. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, West Cameron, Block 342, Lease OCS–G 27023, located 53 1/14/2010 SEA ES/SR 10–001. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, Eugene Island, Block 128A, Lease OCS–G 00442, located 33 1/15/2010 SEA ES/SR 09–235. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Revised Exploration Plan, Mississippi Canyon, Block 778, Lease OCS–G 09868, located 1/20/2010 SEA R–5001 AA. in the Central Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico, 66 miles from offshore, southeast of Venice, Louisiana. Helis Oil & Gas Company, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/ Ship Shoal, Block 53, Lease OCS–G 26051, located 15 miles 1/21/2010 SR 09–236. from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Tana Exploration Company, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/ East Cameron, Block 206, Lease OCS–G 13968, located 55 1/22/2010 SR 10–003. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 08– East Cameron, Block 272, Lease OCS–G 02047, located 79 1/22/2010 026A & 08–059A. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, Eugene Island, Block 128A, Lease OCS–G 00442, located 33 1/22/2010 SEA ES/SR 09–232, 09233 & 09–234. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, Ship Shoal, Block 59 & 76, Lease OCS–G 11977 & G 10762, 1/22/2010 SEA ES/SR 09–229, 09230 & 09–231. located 16 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Beryl Oil & Gas LP, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–004 ... South Timbalier, Block 197, Lease OCS–G 05611, located 40 1/22/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. BHP Billiton Petroleum (GOM), Inc., Revised Exploration Plan, Green Canyon, Block 555, Lease OCS–G 22979, located in 2/11/2010 SEA R–5013 AA. the Central Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico, 118 miles offshore, south of Houma, Louisiana.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67997

Activity/operator Location Date

Mariner Energy, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–005 South Marsh Island, Block 11, Lease OCS–G 01182, located 2/11/2010 35 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. McMoRan Oil & Gas, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR East Cameron, Block 286, Lease OCS–G 02051, located 84 2/12/2010 09–046. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. BHP Billiton Petroleum (GOM), Inc., Revised Exploration Plan, Green Canyon, Block 817, Lease OCS–G 31753, located in 2/12/2010 SEA R–5012 AA. the Central Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico, 130 miles offshore, south of Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. LLOG Exploration & Production Company, Structure Removal, High Island, Block A282, Lease OCS–G 24419, located 90 2/12/2010 SEA ES/SR 09–203. miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Shell Offshore, Inc., Geological & Geophysical Prospecting for Located in the Central Gulf of Mexico south of Venice, Lou- 2/12/2010 Mineral Resources, SEA L10–001. isiana. Marathon Oil Company, Revised Exploration Plan, SEA R– Green Canyon, Block 511, Lease OCS–G 22971, located in 2/23/2010 5015 AA. the Central Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico, 108 miles offshore, south of Terrebone Parish, Louisiana. Tana Exploration Company, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/ East Cameron, Block 271, Lease OCS–G 27050, located 90 2/25/2010 SR 10–007. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 08– Eugene Island, Block 276, Lease OCS–G 00989, located 63 2/25/2010 061A. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. XTO Offshore, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–008 ... Matagorda Island, Block 632, Lease OCS–G 03091, located 3/1/2010 13 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Chevron USA, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–006 ... Grand Isle, Block 37, Lease OCS–G 00392, located 7 miles 3/8/2010 from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, South Pelto, Block 12, Lease OCS–G 10835, located 9 miles 3/8/2010 SEA ES/SR 10–016. from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Stone Energy Corporation, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR South Pelto, Block 15, Lease OCS–G 09652, located 10 miles 3/8/2010 10–009. from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR South Timbalier, Block 77, Lease OCS–G 04827, located 18 3/8/2010 10–014 & 10–015. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Cronus Offshore, Inc., Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 89– Brazos, Block A22, Lease OCS–G 03937, located 35 miles 3/10/2010 052A. from nearest Texas shoreline. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Geological & Geophysical Located in the Central Gulf of Mexico south of Morgan City, 3/17/2010 Exploration for Mineral Resources, SEA L10–007. Louisiana. GOM Shelf, LLC, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–025 ...... South Marsh Island, Block 174, Lease OCS–G 02888, located 3/19/2010 95 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, Vermilion, Block 199, Lease OCS–G 09499, located 56 miles 3/19/2010 SEA ES/SR 10–013. from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, West Cameron, Block 347, Lease OCS–G 22543, located 41 3/19/2010 SEA ES/SR 10–012. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Apache Corporation, Structure Removal, SEA ES/SR 10–024 Eugene Island, Block 380, Lease OCS–G 02327, located 95 3/22/2010 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc., Structure Removal, West Cameron, Block 444, lease OCS–G 25915, located 74 3/23/2010 SEA ES/SR 10–011. miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Shell Offshore, Inc., Revised Exploration Plan, SEA R–5030 Walker Ridge, Block 95, Lease OCS–G 31943, located in the 3/31/2010 AA. Central Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico, 160 miles offshore, south of Morgan City, Louisiana.

Persons interested in reviewing DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR description. The correct legal land environmental documents for the description for the Gas Hills Uranium proposals listed above or obtaining Bureau of Land Management Project location is as follows: information about SEAs and FONSIs [LLWY930000–L51100000–GN0000– Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming prepared by the Gulf of Mexico OCS LVEMK10CW370; WYW140590] Region are encouraged to contact T. 32 N., R. 89 and 90 W. BOEMRE at the address or telephone Notice of Correction to Notice of Intent T. 33 N., R. 89 and 90 W. listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To Prepare an Environmental Impact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CONTACT section. Statement for the Gas Hills Uranium Kristin Yannone, Project Leader, at 307– Project, Fremont and Natrona 332–8448. Dated: October 4, 2010. Counties, WY Robert P. LaBelle, Donald A. Simpson, AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Acting Associate Director for Offshore Energy Interior. State Director. and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. 2010–27801 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] ACTION: [FR Doc. 2010–27806 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Notice of correction. BILLING CODE 4310–22–P BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P SUMMARY: On September 7, 2010, the Bureau of Land Management published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming (75 FR 54384). The notice inadvertently contained an incorrect legal land

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 67998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR condition. Dr. Robert Sundick, a Western Michigan University is physical anthropologist in the responsible for notifying the Little National Park Service Anthropology Department at Western Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan University, studied the Michigan, and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe Notice of Inventory Completion: remains. Native American ancestry was of Chippewa Indians of Michigan, that Western Michigan University, determined based on the temporal this notice has been published. Anthropology Department, Kalamazoo, association of the Gyftakis Site to the MI Dated: October 29, 2010. Middle Woodland period (A.D. 170), Sherry Hutt, radiocarbon dating of a sample from an AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Manager, National NAGPRA Program. associated hearth and AMS date of ACTION: Notice. ceramic pot residue. Additionally, [FR Doc. 2010–27916 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–50–P Notice is here given in accordance seriation of the pottery and lithic tools with the Native American Graves discovered at the Gyftakis Site, but which are not associated funerary Protection and Repatriation Act DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the objects, are indicative of the Middle completion of an inventory of human Woodland period and are clearly of pre- National Park Service remains and associated funerary objects Contact/European manufacturing. in the possession of Western Michigan According to oral tradition, the Little Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. University, Anthropology Department, Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Department of Agriculture, Forest Kalamazoo, MI. The human remains and have occupied the St. Ignace area for Service, Chattahoochee-Oconee associated funerary objects were numerous generations preceding National Forests, Gainesville, GA removed from Mackinac County, MI. European arrival into the Great Lakes. This notice is published as part of the The archeological evidence of pre- AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. National Park Service’s administrative historic Native American occupation of ACTION: Notice. responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 the Gyftakis site supports the Odawa U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in oral histories. In 1615, the French were Notice is here given in accordance this notice are the sole responsibility of the first Europeans to record the Odawa with the Native American Graves the museum, institution, or Federal in the Great Lakes. Since this first Protection and Repatriation Act agency that has control of the Native encounter in the early 17th century to (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the American human remains and the present-day, the Odawa have a long, completion of an inventory of human associated funerary objects. The documented history at St. Ignace and remains and associated funerary objects National Park Service is not responsible the surrounding Mackinac region. in the possession of the U.S. Department for the determinations in this notice. Officials of Western Michigan of Agriculture, Forest Service, A detailed assessment of the human University have determined, pursuant to Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests, remains was made by Western Michigan 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains Gainesville, GA. The human remains University professional staff in described above represent the physical and associated funerary objects were consultation with representatives of the remains of eight individuals of Native removed from Greene County, GA. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa American ancestry. Officials of Western This notice is published as part of the Indians, Michigan, and the Sault Ste. Michigan University also have National Park Service’s administrative Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 Michigan. 3001(3)(A), the 20 objects described U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in In 1973, human remains representing above are reasonably believed to have this notice are the sole responsibility of a minimum of eight individuals were been placed with or near individual the museum, institution, or Federal removed from the Gyftakis site human remains at the time of death or agency that has control of the Native (20MK51), St. Ignace, Moran Township, later as part of the death rite or American human remains and Mackinac County, MI, during an ceremony. Lastly, officials of Western associated funerary objects. The archeological excavation directed by Dr. Michigan University have determined, National Park Service is not responsible James Fitting. The human remains were pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is for the determinations in this notice. transferred to Western Michigan a relationship of shared group identity A detailed assessment of the human University for curation and further that can be reasonably traced between remains was made by the professional analysis. The 20 associated funerary the Native American human remains staff of the Chattahoochee-Oconee objects are 8 black bear scapula and and associated funerary objects and the National Forests, University of Georgia, fragments, 1 black bear atlas, 1 black Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa and Southeastern Archaeological bear proximal femur head, 1 large bird Indians, Michigan. Services, Inc., and in consultation with long bone shaft, 1 possible black bear Representatives of any other Indian the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, phalanx, 1 possible crane Tribe that believes itself to be culturally Oklahoma, and the Poarch Band of carpometacarpus, 1 raptor affiliated with the human remains and Creek Indians of Alabama. carpometacarpus, 1 possible small bird associated funerary objects should Sometime between 1985 and 1986, long bone, 1 unidentified non-human contact LouAnn Wurst, Department of human remains representing a cranium fragment, 2 bird or small Anthropology, Western Michigan minimum of two individuals were mammal long bones and 2 probable bird University, 1005 Moore Hall, removed from site 9GE1083, Greene phalanxes. Kalamazoo, MI 49008, telephone (269) County, GA. This site was disturbed by In 1972, Middle Woodland period 387–2753, before December 6, 2010. logging operations, and the human ceramic sherds were found during test Repatriation of the human remains and remains were removed by a local excavations for the St. Ignace associated funerary objects to the Little collector in late 1985 or early 1986. No Archaeological Survey Project, which Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, known individuals were identified. The prompted the archeological survey. The Michigan, may proceed after that date if 131 associated funerary objects are burials were found to be in good no additional claimants come forward. Lamar period ceramic pottery sherds.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67999

The site was investigated by Forest associated funerary objects should A detailed assessment of the human Service and contract archeologists and contact James Wettstaed, remains was made by the determined to be a boulder cache Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests, Anthropological Studies Center containing ceramic sherds and human 1775 Cleveland Rd., Gainesville, GA professional staff in consultation with skeletal remains. An area of charcoal 30501, telephone (770) 297–3026, before representatives of the Round Valley rich soil was screened during the December 6, 2010. Repatriation of the Indian Tribes of the Round Valley investigation, resulting in the recovery human remains and associated funerary Reservation, California. of a small number of ceramic sherds and objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe In January 1982, human remains bone fragments. A total of 478 pieces of of Texas; Alabama-Quassarte Tribal representing a minimum of one human bone were recovered. No paired Town, Oklahoma; Coushatta Tribe of individual were removed from the bones were identified that would Louisiana; Kialegee Tribal Town, Diamond H. Ranch Site #2 (CA–MEN– indicate more than one individual; Oklahoma; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 164), in Mendocino County, CA. The although differential wear on two teeth Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek human remains were collected from a may indicate it is possible two Indians of Alabama; and Thlopthlocco prehistoric feature exposed in a road cut individuals are present. Tribal Town, Oklahoma, may proceed bank during a surface survey for the Lamar period ceramics present at the after that date if no additional claimants Diamond H. Ranch Biomass Generating site, which are associated with the Iron come forward. Plant. This collection, curated under the Horse, Dyar and Bell phases, suggest a The Chattahoochee-Oconee National accession number 82–01, represents date of approximately A.D. 1450–1670. Forests are responsible for notifying the results of the survey of CA–MEN–164, Following 1670, this region was Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; near the town of Covelo, Mendocino abandoned by Native Americans for a Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, County, CA. The collection has been period of time, and the surviving Oklahoma; Coushatta Tribe of housed at the Anthropological Studies populations are thought to have Louisiana; Kialegee Tribal Town, Center since it was accessioned in 1982. eventually joined with the Creek Oklahoma; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, No known individual was identified. No Confederacy. Based on a review of the Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek associated funerary objects are present. archeology, ethnography and history of Indians of Alabama; and Thlopthlocco Analysis of the artifacts found at site the region, officials of the Forest Service Tribal Town, Oklahoma, that this notice CA–MEN–164 indicates a probable believe the human remains are Creek in has been published. occupation between A.D. 1500 and affiliation. The Creek are represented by 1856. Although the exact age and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Dated: October 29, 2010. identity of the individual is unknown, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Sherry Hutt, more likely than not, the human Oklahoma; Coushatta Tribe of Manager, National NAGPRA Program. remains fall within the period indicated Louisiana; Kialegee Tribal Town, [FR Doc. 2010–27917 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] above and are Native American. Oklahoma; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, BILLING CODE 4312–50–P Ethnographic documents indicate CA– Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek MEN–164 was located within the Indians of Alabama; and Thlopthlocco territory of the Ukomno’m division of Tribal Town, Oklahoma. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the Yuki. Ethnographic accounts and Officials of the Chattahoochee-Oconee information provided by representatives National Forests have determined, National Park Service of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of the pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the Round Valley Reservation, California, Notice of Inventory Completion: human remains described above demonstrate cultural affiliation with the Anthropological Studies Center, represent the physical remains of two human remains, as the Round Valley Archaeological Collections Facility, individuals of Native American Indian Tribes are composed of Sonoma State University, Rohnert ancestry. Officials of the Chattahoochee- descendants of the Yuki, Concow Park, CA Oconee National Forests also have Maidu, Little Lake and other Pomo, determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Nomlaki, Cahto, Wailaki and Pit River 3001(3)(A), the 131 objects described ACTION: Notice. peoples. above are reasonably believed to have Officials of the Anthropological been placed with or near individual Notice is here given in accordance Studies Center, Archaeological human remains at the time of death or with the Native American Graves Collections Facility, Sonoma State later as part of the death rite or Protection and Repatriation Act University, have determined, pursuant ceremony. Lastly, officials of the (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests completion of an inventory of human described above represent the physical have determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. remains in the possession of the remains of one individual of Native 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared Anthropological Studies Center, American ancestry. Lastly, officials of group identity that can be reasonably Archaeological Collections Facility, the Anthropological Studies Center, traced between the Native American Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, Archaeological Collections Facility, human remains and associated funerary CA. The human remains were removed Sonoma State University, have objects and the Alabama-Coushatta from Mendocino County, CA. determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Tribe of Texas; Alabama-Quassarte This notice is published as part of the 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared Tribal Town, Oklahoma; Coushatta National Park Service’s administrative group identity that can be reasonably Tribe of Louisiana; Kialegee Tribal responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 traced between the Native American Town, Oklahoma; Muscogee (Creek) U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in human remains and the Round Valley Nation, Oklahoma; Poarch Band of this notice are the sole responsibility of Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Creek Indians of Alabama; and the museum, institution, or Federal Reservation, California. Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma. agency that has control of the Native Representatives of any other Indian Representatives of any other Indian American human remains. The National Tribe that believes itself to be culturally Tribe that believes itself to be culturally Park Service is not responsible for the affiliated with the human remains affiliated with the human remains and determinations in this notice. should contact Erica Gibson, NAGPRA

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Project Coordinator, Anthropological Community, Michigan; Grand Traverse Agriculture, Forest Service, will transfer Studies Center, Archaeological Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Native American human remains Collections Facility, Sonoma State Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian from the Naomikong Point Site to the University, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan, telephone (707) 664–2015, before Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa December 6, 2010. Repatriation of the Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Indians of Michigan. human remains to the Round Valley Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Officials of the U.S. Department of Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Agriculture, Forest Service, determined, Reservation, California, may proceed Indians of Michigan; and Saginaw pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the after that date if no additional claimants Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan. human remains described above come forward. In 1966, human remains representing represent the physical remains of one The Anthropological Studies Center, a minimum of one individual were individual of Native American ancestry. Archaeological Collections Facility, removed from the Naomikong Point Site Lastly, officials of the U.S. Department Sonoma State University, is responsible (20CH2), Chippewa County, MI, during of Agriculture, Forest Service, have for notifying the Round Valley Indian excavations by the University of determined, pursuant to 43 CFR Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, Michigan. This site is on Federal land, 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the California, that this notice has been and excavation occurred under a U.S. human remains is to the Bay Mills published. Department of Agriculture, Forest Indian Community, Michigan, and the Service, Special Use Permit. No known Dated: October 29, 2010. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa individual was identified. No associated Sherry Hutt, Indians of Michigan. funerary objects are present. Representatives of any Indian Tribe Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Based on archeological context, the that believes itself to be culturally [FR Doc. 2010–27919 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] human remains are identified as more affiliated with the human remains or BILLING CODE 4312–50–P likely than not Native American. any other Indian Tribe that believes it Officials of the U.S. Department of satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR Agriculture, Forest Service, have 10.11(c)(1) should contact Teresa Chase, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Acting Forest Supervisor, Hiawatha 3001(2), a relationship of shared group National Forest, 2727 N. Lincoln Road, National Park Service identity cannot be reasonably traced Escanaba, MI 49829, telephone (906) between the Native American human Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. 786–4062, before December 6, 2010. remains and any present-day Indian Department of Agriculture, Forest Disposition of the human remains to the Tribe. Service, Hiawatha National Forest, These Native American human Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan, Escanaba, MI and University of remains are from the aboriginal lands of and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, the Chippewa and Ottawa. According to Chippewa Indians of Michigan, may Ann Arbor, MI the Treaty of Washington, March 28, proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward. AGENCY: 1836 (7 stat. 491), there are five present- National Park Service, Interior. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, ACTION: Notice. day Indian Tribes that have aboriginal land in the area where the remains were Forest Service, is responsible for Notice is here given in accordance excavated. These five Tribes are the Bay notifying the Bay Mills Indian with the Native American Graves Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Community, Michigan; Grand Traverse Protection and Repatriation Act Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Little Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian completion of an inventory of human River Band of Ottawa Indians, Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert remains in the control of the U.S. Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Department of Agriculture, Forest Odawa Indians, Michigan; and the Sault Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Service, Hiawatha National Forest, Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Escanaba, MI, and in the physical Michigan. The aboriginal land Tribes Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa custody of the University of Michigan, that are in closest proximity to the site Indians of Michigan; and Saginaw Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, are the Bay Mills Indian Community, Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, MI. The human remains were removed Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of that this notice has been published. from Naomikong Point Site, Chippewa Chippewa Indians of Michigan. Letters Dated: October 29, 2010. County, MI. of support for the disposition of the Sherry Hutt, This notice is published as part of the Native American human remains to the Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan, National Park Service’s administrative [FR Doc. 2010–27918 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa BILLING CODE 4312–50–P U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). Indians of Michigan were sent by the The determinations in this notice are Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; the sole responsibility of the museum, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and institution, or Federal agency that has Chippewa Indians, Michigan; INTERNATIONAL TRADE control of the Native American human Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, COMMISSION remains. The National Park Service is Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of not responsible for the determinations Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Notice of Receipt of Complaint; in this notice. Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Solicitation of Comments Relating to A detailed assessment of the human Odawa Indians, Michigan; Sault Ste. the Public Interest remains was made by U.S. Department Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of AGENCY: U.S. International Trade of Agriculture, Forest Service, Michigan; and Saginaw Chippewa Commission. professional staff in consultation with Indian Tribe of Michigan. Therefore, ACTION: Notice. representatives of the Bay Mills Indian officials of the U.S. Department of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68001

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that (i) Explain how the articles and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, the U.S. International Trade potentially subject to the orders are used 210.50(a)(4)). Commission has received a complaint in the United States; By order of the Commission. entitled In Re Certain Mobile Devices (ii) Identify any public health, safety, Dated: November 1, 2010. and Related Software, DN 2768; the or welfare concerns in the United States Marilyn R. Abbott, Commission is soliciting comments on relating to the potential orders; Secretary to the Commission. any public interest issues raised by the (iii) Indicate the extent to which like complaint. or directly competitive articles are [FR Doc. 2010–27903 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: produced in the United States or are Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the otherwise available in the United States, Commission, U.S. International Trade with respect to the articles potentially Commission, 500 E Street, SW., subject to the orders; and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) (iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Revision to Notice of Lodging of 205–2000. The public version of the Complainant’s licensees, and/or third Settlement Agreement Under the complaint can be accessed on the party suppliers have the capacity to Comprehensive Environmental Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) replace the volume of articles Response, Compensation, and Liability at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be potentially subject to an exclusion order Act and the Resource Conservation available for inspection during official and a cease and desist order within a and Recovery Act Published on business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) commercially reasonable time. October 28, 2010 in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Written submissions must be filed no International Trade Commission, 500 E later than by close of business, five The notice previously published on Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, business days after the date of October 28, 2010, is hereby revised to telephone (202) 205–2000. publication of this notice in the Federal correct two site location errors. The General information concerning the Register. There will be further correct site locations are: Commission may also be obtained by opportunities for comment on the 71. the Former Leed’s Assembly Plant— accessing its Internet server (http:// public interest after the issuance of any Northern Parcel Site in Missouri; and www.usitc.gov). The public record for final initial determination in this 72. the Former Leed’s Assembly Plant— this investigation may be viewed on the investigation. Southern Parcel Site in Missouri. Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) Persons filing written submissions Instructions for sending comments on at http://www.edis.usitc.gov. Hearing- must file the original document and 12 the proposed Consent Decree and impaired persons are advised that true copies thereof on or before the Settlement Agreement and for obtaining information on this matter can be deadlines stated above with the Office copies of the proposed Decree and obtained by contacting the of the Secretary. Submissions should Agreement are provided in the October Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 28, 2010 Notice (Federal Register/Vol. 205–1810. 2768’’) in a prominent place on the 75, No. 208/Thursday, October 28, 2010/Notices/page 66390). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The cover page and/or the first page. The Commission has received a complaint Commission’s rules authorize filing Maureen Katz, filed on behalf of Apple Inc., f/k/a submissions with the Secretary by Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Apple Computer, Inc., on October 29, facsimile or electronic means only to the Enforcement Section, Environment and 2010. The complaint alleges violations extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Natural Resources Division. of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 rules (see Handbook for Electronic [FR Doc. 2010–27846 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ BILLING CODE 4410–15–P the United States, the sale for secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ importation, and the sale within the documents/ United States after importation of handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). DEPARTMENT OF LABOR certain mobile devices and related Persons with questions regarding software. The complaint names as electronic filing should contact the Employment and Training respondents Motorola, Inc., of Secretary (202–205–2000). Administration Schaumburg, IL and Motorola Mobility, Any person desiring to submit a Inc., of Libertyville, IL document to the Commission in Federal-State Unemployment The complainant, proposed confidence must request confidential Compensation Program: Certifications respondents, other interested parties, treatment. All such requests should be for 2010 under the Federal and members of the public are invited directed to the Secretary to the Unemployment Tax Act to file comments, not to exceed five Commission and must include a full AGENCY: Employment and Training pages in length, on any public interest statement of the reasons why the Administration, Labor. issues raised by the complaint. Commission should grant such ACTION: Notice. Comments should address whether treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents issuance of an exclusion order and/or a for which confidential treatment by the SUMMARY: The Secretary of Labor signed cease and desist order in this Commission is properly sought will be the annual certifications under the investigation would negatively affect the treated accordingly. All nonconfidential Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 public health and welfare in the United written submissions will be available for U.S.C. 3301 et seq., thereby enabling States, competitive conditions in the public inspection at the Office of the employers who make contributions to United States economy, the production Secretary. state unemployment funds to obtain of like or directly competitive articles in This action is taken under the certain credits against their liability for the United States, or United States authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act the federal unemployment tax. By letter, consumers. of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), the certifications were transmitted to the In particular, the Commission is and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) Secretary of the Treasury. The letter and interested in comments that: of the Commission’s Rules of Practice certifications are printed below.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Signed in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2010. Jane Oates, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES EN04NO10.014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68003

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES EN04NO10.015 68004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES EN04NO10.016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68005

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES EN04NO10.017 68006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

[FR Doc. 2010–27899 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES EN04NO10.018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68007

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR veterans, with special emphasis on The purpose of the meeting is to employer outreach and wounded and advise the Chairman of the National Veterans’ Employment and Training injured veterans. There will be an Endowment for the Humanities with Service opportunity for persons or organizations respect to policies, programs, and to address the committee. Any procedures for carrying out his Office of the Assistant Secretary; The individual or organization that wishes functions, and to review applications for Advisory Committee on Veterans’ to do so should contact Gregory Green financial support from and gifts offered Employment, Training and Employer (202) 693–4734. Time constraints may to the Endowment and to make Outreach (ACVETEO); Notice of Open limit the number of presentations. recommendations thereon to the Meeting Signed in Washington, DC this 1st day of Chairman. The Advisory Committee on Veterans’ November, 2010. The meeting will be held in the Old Employment, Training and Employer John M. McWilliam, Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Outreach (ACVETEO) was established Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. A pursuant to Title II of the Veterans’ and Management, Veterans’ Employment and portion of the morning and afternoon Housing Opportunity and Benefits Training Service. sessions on November 18–19, 2010, will Improvement Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109– [FR Doc. 2010–27905 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] not be open to the public pursuant to 233) and Section 9 of the Federal BILLING CODE 4510–79–P subsections (c)(4), (c)(6) and (c)(9)(B) of Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. section 552b of Title 5, United States L. 92–462, Title 5 U.S.C. app.II). The Code because the Council will consider authority of the ACVETEO is codified in information that may disclose: trade Title 38 U.S. Code, Section 4110. THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE secrets and commercial or financial The ACVETEO is responsible for ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES information obtained from a person and assessing employment and training privileged or confidential; information needs of veterans; determining the Meeting of National Council on the of a personal nature the disclosure of extent to which the programs and Humanities which would constitute a clearly activities of the U.S. Department of unwarranted invasion of personal Labor meet these needs; and assisting to AGENCY: The National Endowment for privacy; and information the premature conduct outreach to employers seeking the Humanities. disclosure of which would be likely to to hire veterans. The ACVETEO will ACTION: Notice of meeting. significantly frustrate implementation of conduct a business meeting by proposed agency action. I have made teleconference on Friday, December 3, Pursuant to the provisions of the this determination under the authority 2010 from 2 to 3:30 p.m. The ACVETEO Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. granted me by the Chairman’s will discuss progress and plans L. 92–463, as amended) notice is hereby Delegation of Authority dated July 19, regarding programs that assist veterans given that the National Council on the 1993. seeking employment and raise employer Humanities will meet in Washington, The agenda for the sessions on awareness as to the advantages of hiring DC on November 18–19, 2010. November 18, 2010 will be as follows:

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Policy Discussion (Open to the Public): 9–10:30 a.m...... Challenge Grants and Federal/State Room 507. Partnership. Education Programs ...... Room M– 07. Preservation and Access ...... Room 415. Public Programs ...... Room 421. Research Programs ...... Room 315. Discussion of specific grant applications and programs before the Council (Closed to the Public): 10:30 a.m. until Adjourned ...... Challenge Grants and Federal/State Room 507. Partnership. Education Programs ...... Room M–07. Preservation and Access ...... Room 415. Public Programs ...... Room 421. Research Programs ...... Room 315.

The morning session of the meeting 6. Reports on Policy and General Further information about this on November 19, 2010 will convene at Matters. meeting can be obtained from Michael 9 a.m., in the first floor Council Room a. Challenge Grants. P. McDonald, Advisory Committee M–09, and will be open to the public, b. Federal/State Partnership. Management Officer, National as set out below. The agenda for the c. Education Programs. Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 morning session will be as follows: d. Public Programs. Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., A. Minutes of the Previous Meeting. e. Preservation and Access. Washington, DC 20506, or by calling B. Reports. (202) 606–8322, TDD (202) 606–8282. 1. Introductory Remarks. f. Research Programs. 2. Guest Speaker: Henry Louis Gates, The remainder of the proposed Jr. meeting will be given to the 3. Staff Report. consideration of specific applications 4. Congressional Report. and will be closed to the public for the 5. Budget Report. reasons stated above.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68008 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Advance notice of any special needs or November 17, 2010; 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. 1. Type of submission, new, revision, accommodations is appreciated. (EST). or extension: Extension. Place: Arlington Hilton, Gallery II 2. The title of the information Michael P. McDonald, Conference Room, Arlington, VA. collection: 10 CFR part 4: Advisory Committee, Management Officer. Type of Meeting: OPEN. ‘‘Nondiscrimination In Federally [FR Doc. 2010–27841 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Contact Person: Patty Balanga, Assisted Commission Programs’’. BILLING CODE 7536–01–P National Science Foundation, 4201 3. Current OMB approval number: Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 3150–0053. (703) 292–8100. 4. The form number if applicable: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Purpose of Meeting: To provide N/A. BOARD advice concerning issues related to the 5. How often the collection is oversight, integrity, development and required: Approximately 3 collection Sunshine Act Meetings: November enhancement of NSF’s business per year. 2010 operations. 6. Who will be required or asked to Time and Dates Agenda report: All recipients of Federal financial assistance (grants) from the All meetings are held at 2:30 p.m.: November 16, 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Monday, November 1; Welcome/Introductions; BFA Update; 7. An estimate of the number of Tuesday, November 9; The Changing Workplace: Challenges in annual responses: 800. Wednesday, November 10; a Federal Context (Overview and Panel 8. The estimated number of annual Tuesday, November 16; Discussion); Committee Discussion: respondents: 200. Wednesday, November 17; Prepare for Meeting with NSF Deputy 9. An estimate of the total number of Thursday, November 18; hours needed annually to complete the Tuesday, November 23; Director; Discussion with Deputy Director; Open Government. requirement or request: 3,600 hours. Tuesday, November 30. 10. Abstract: Recipients of NRC PLACE: Board Agenda Room, No. 11820, November 17, 2010 financial assistance provide data to 1099 14th St., NW., Washington DC The Changing Workplace: Challenges demonstrate assurance to NRC that they 20570. in a Federal Context (Discussion are in compliance with non- STATUS: Closed. Continued); International Facilities discrimination regulations and policies. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Pursuant to Subcommittee; Committee A copy of the final supporting § 102.139(a) of the Board’s Rules and Expectations/Closing Discussions. statement may be viewed free of charge Regulations, the Board or a panel Dated: October 29, 2010. at the NRC Public Document Room, One thereof will consider ‘‘the issuance of a Susanne Bolton, White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD subpoena, the Board’s participation in a Committee Management Officer. civil action or proceeding or an 20852. OMB clearance requests are [FR Doc. 2010–27791 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or available at the NRC Worldwide Web disposition * * * of particular BILLING CODE 7555–01–P site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ representation or unfair labor practice doc-comment/omb/index.html. The proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of document will be available on the NRC the [National Labor Relations] Act, or NUCLEAR REGULATORY home page site for 60 days after the any court proceedings collateral or COMMISSION signature date of this notice. ancillary thereto.’’ See also 5 U.S.C. [Docket No. NRC–2010–0261] Comments and questions should be 552b(c)(10). directed to the OMB reviewer listed CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Agency Information Collection below by December 6, 2010. Comments Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary, Activities: Submission for the Office of received after this date will be (202) 273–1067. Management and Budget (OMB) considered if it is practical to do so, but Review; Comment Request assurance of consideration cannot be Dated: November 2, 2010. given to comments received after this AGENCY: Lester A. Heltzer, Nuclear Regulatory date. Executive Secretary. Commission (NRC). Christine J. Kymn, Desk Officer, [FR Doc. 2010–28052 Filed 11–2–10; 4:15 pm] ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of Office of Information and Regulatory BILLING CODE 7545–01–P information collection and solicitation Affairs (3150–0053), NEOB–10202, of public comment. Office of Management and Budget, SUMMARY: The NRC has recently Washington, DC 20503. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION submitted to OMB for review the Comments can also be e-mailed to following proposal for the collection of [email protected] or Business and Operations Advisory information under the provisions of the submitted by telephone at (202) 395– Committee Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 4638. The NRC Clearance Officer is ACTION: Change in Notice of Meeting. U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an Tremaine Donnell, (301) 415–6258. SUMMARY: The National Science agency may not conduct or sponsor, and Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day Foundation published a Notice of that a person is not required to respond of October 2010. Meeting in the Federal Register on to, a collection of information unless it For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Monday, October 25, page 65528. The displays a currently valid OMB control Tremaine Donnell, topics listed in the agenda have been number. The NRC published a Federal NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information changed. Register Notice with a 60-day comment Services. Date/Time: November 16, 2010; 1 period on this information collection on [FR Doc. 2010–27865 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EST). July 29, 2010. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68009

NUCLEAR REGULATORY Regulatory Commission, Washington, ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains an COMMISSION DC 20555–0001; telephone at 301–415– ADAMS, which provides text and image 6332 or e-mail at files of NRC’s public documents. These [NRC–2010–0222] [email protected]. documents may be accessed through the NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room Office of New Reactors; Notice of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC Availability of the Final Staff Guidance posts its issued staff guidance on the on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ Standard Review Plan Section 13.6.2, NRC external Web page (http:// reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who Revision 1 on Physical Security— www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- do not have access to ADAMS or who Design Certification collections/isg/). encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day contact the NRC Public Document Room Commission (NRC). of October 2010. reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– ACTION: Notice of Availability. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 415–4737, or by e-mail at William F. Burton, [email protected]. SUMMARY: The NRC is issuing its Final Chief, Rulemaking and Guidance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Revision 1 to NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard Development Branch, Division of New Reactor William F. Burton, Chief, Rulemaking Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of Licensing, Office of New Reactor. and Guidance Development Branch, Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear [FR Doc. 2010–27871 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Division of New Reactor Licensing, Power Plants,’’ Section 13.6.2, Revision BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear 1 on Physical Security—Design Regulatory Commission, Washington, Certification (Agencywide Documents DC, 20555–0001; telephone at 301–415– Access and Management System NUCLEAR REGULATORY 6332 or e-mail at (ADAMS) Accession No. COMMISSION [email protected]. ML102510273). The NRC staff issues revisions to SRP [NRC–2010–0223] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC sections to facilitate timely posts its issued staff guidance on the implementation of the current staff Office of New Reactors; Notice of NRC external Web page (http:// guidance and to facilitate reviews to Availability of the Final Staff Guidance www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- amendments to licenses for operating Standard Review Plan Section 13.6.3, collections/isg/). reactors or for activities associated with Revision 1 on Physical Security—Early Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day review of applications for early site Site Permit of October 2010. permits and combined licenses for the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, AGENCY: Office of New Reactors. The NRC staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). William F. Burton, will also incorporate Revision 1 of SRP Chief, Rulemaking and Guidance ACTION: Notice of Availability. Section 13.6.2 into the next revisions of Development Branch, Division of New Reactor the Regulatory Guide 1.206, ‘‘Combined Licensing, Office of New Reactors. SUMMARY: The NRC is issuing its Final License Applications for Nuclear Power Revision 1 to NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard [FR Doc. 2010–27866 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Plants,’’ and related guidance Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of BILLING CODE 7590–01–P documents. Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Disposition: On June 15, 2010, the Power Plants,’’ Section 13.6.3, Revision NRC staff issued the proposed Revision 1 on Physical Security—Early Site NUCLEAR REGULATORY 1 on SRP Section 13.6.2 on ‘‘Physical Permit (Agencywide Documents Access COMMISSION Security—Design Certification,’’ and Management System (ADAMS) [NRC–2010–0228] ADAMS Accession No. ML100640121. Accession No. ML102571602). The NRC There were no comments received on staff issues revisions to SRP sections to Office of New Reactors; Notice of the proposed revision. Therefore, the facilitate timely implementation of the Availability of the Final Staff Guidance guidance is issued as final without current staff guidance and to facilitate Standard Review Plan, Section 13.6.1, changes to the proposed notification as reviews to amendments to licenses for Revision 1 on Physical Security— above. operating reactors or for activities Combined License and Operating ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains associated with review of applications Reactors ADAMS, which provides text and image for early site permits and combined files of NRC’s public documents. These AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory licenses for the Office of New Reactors. Commission (NRC). documents may be accessed through the The NRC staff will also incorporate ACTION: Notice of Availability. NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room Revision 1 of SRP Section 13.6.3 into on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ the next revisions of the Regulatory SUMMARY: The NRC is issuing its Final reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who Guide 1.206, ‘‘Combined License Revision 1 to NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard do not have access to ADAMS or who Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of encounter problems in accessing the and related guidance documents. Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear documents located in ADAMS should Disposition: On June 15, 2010, the Power Plants,’’ Section 13.6.1, Revision contact the NRC Public Document Room NRC staff issued the proposed Revision 1 on Physical Security—Combined reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 1 on SRP Section 13.6.3 on ‘‘Physical License and Operating Reactors 415–4737, or by e-mail at Security—Early Site Permit,’’ ADAMS (Agencywide Documents Access and [email protected]. Accession No. ML100980132. There Management System (ADAMS) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. were no comments received on the Accession No. ML102230082). William F. Burton, Chief, Rulemaking proposed revision. Therefore, the The NRC staff issues revisions to SRP and Guidance Development Branch, guidance is issued as final with editorial sections to facilitate timely Division of New Reactor Licensing, change to the proposed notification as implementation of the current staff Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear above. guidance and to facilitate reviews to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

amendments to licenses for operating ACTION: Notice of meeting. Act of 1940 for the month of October reactors or for activities associated with 2010. A copy of each application may be review of applications for early site SUMMARY: The Federal Salary Council obtained via the Commission’s Web site permits and combined licenses for the will meet on November 19, 2010, at the by searching for the file number, or an Office of New Reactors. The NRC staff time and location shown below. The applicant using the Company name box, will also incorporate Revision 1 of SRP Council is an advisory body composed at http://www.sec.gov/search/ Section 13.6.1 into the next revisions of of representatives of Federal employee search.htm or by calling (202)551–8090. the Regulatory Guide 1.206, ‘‘Combined organizations and experts in the fields An order granting each application will License Applications for Nuclear Power of labor relations and pay policy. The be issued unless the SEC orders a Plants,’’ and related guidance Council makes recommendations to the hearing. Interested persons may request documents. President’s Pay Agent (the Secretary of a hearing on any application by writing Disposition: On June 10, 2010, the Labor and the Directors of the Office of to the SEC’s Secretary at the address NRC staff issued the proposed Revision Management and Budget and the Office below and serving the relevant 1 on SRP Section 13.6.1 on ‘‘Physical of Personnel Management) about the applicant with a copy of the request, Security—Combined License and locality pay program for General personally or by mail. Hearing requests Operating Reactors,’’ ADAMS Accession Schedule employees under section 5304 should be received by the SEC by 5:30 No. ML100350158. There were no of title 5, United States Code. The p.m. on November 19, 2010, and should comments received on the proposed Council’s recommendations cover the be accompanied by proof of service on revision. Therefore, the guidance is establishment or modification of locality the applicant, in the form of an affidavit issued as final without changes to the pay areas, the coverage of salary or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. proposed notification as stated above. surveys, the process of comparing Hearing requests should state the nature Federal and non-Federal rates of pay, ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains of the writer’s interest, the reason for the and the level of comparability payments ADAMS, which provides text and image request, and the issues contested. that should be paid. files of NRC’s public documents. These Persons who wish to be notified of a The November meeting will be documents may be accessed through the hearing may request notification by devoted to reviewing the results of pay NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities comparisons and formulating its on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ and Exchange Commission, 100 F recommendations to the President’s Pay reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549– Agent on pay comparison methods, do not have access to ADAMS or who 1090. locality pay rates, and locality pay areas encounter problems in accessing the and boundaries for 2012. The meeting is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: documents located in ADAMS should open to the public. Please contact the Diane L. Titus at (202) 551–6810, SEC, contact the NRC Public Document Room Office of Personnel Management at the Division of Investment Management, reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, address shown below if you wish to Office of Investment Company 301–415–4737, or by e-mail at submit testimony or present material to Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., [email protected]. the Council at the meeting. Washington, DC 20549–4041. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. DATES: November 19, 2010, at 10 a.m. Evergreen Leaders Trust William F. Burton, Chief, Rulemaking LOCATION: Office of Personnel [File No. 811–8334] and Guidance Development Branch, Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room Division of New Reactor Licensing, Summary: Applicant seeks an order 5H17, Washington, DC. Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear declaring that it has ceased to be an Regulatory Commission, Washington, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: investment company. Applicant has DC 20555–0001; telephone at 301–415– Charles D. Grimes, III, Deputy Associate never made a public offering of its 6332 or e-mail at Director, Employee Services, Office of securities and does not propose to make [email protected]. Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, a public offering or engage in business NW., Room 7H31, Washington, DC of any kind. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC 20415–8200. Phone (202) 606–2838; Filing Dates: The application was posts its issued staff guidance on the FAX (202) 606–4264; or e-mail at pay- filed on October 13, 2010, and amended NRC external Web page (http:// [email protected]. on October 25, 2010. www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- For the President’s Pay Agent. Applicant’s Address: 200 Berkeley St., collections/isg/). Boston, MA 02116. John Berry, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of October 2010. Director. Federated Investment Portfolios [File No. 811–7461]; Federated For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–27835 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Investment Trust [File No. 811–7477] William F. Burton, BILLING CODE 6325–39–P Chief, Rulemaking and Guidance Summary: Applicants, a hub and Development Branch, Division of New Reactor spoke, respectively, in a hub and spoke Licensing. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE structure, seek orders declaring that [FR Doc. 2010–27873 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] COMMISSION they have ceased to be investment companies. On September 25, 1998, BILLING CODE 7590–01–P [Release No. IC–29493] Federated Investment Trust redeemed Notice of Applications for all of its interests in Federated Investment Portfolios, whose assets OFFICE OF PERSONNEL Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 were distributed in-kind to Federated MANAGEMENT Investment Trust at net asset value. Federal Salary Council October 29, 2010. Also, on September 25, 1998, Federated The following is a notice of Investment Trust transferred its assets to AGENCY: Office of Personnel applications for deregistration under Federated Total Return Bond Fund, a Management. section 8(f) of the Investment Company series of Federated Total Return Series,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68011

Inc., based on net asset value. retained $40,435 and $31,640, Management, Inc., applicant’s Applicants incurred no expenses in respectively, in cash to pay certain investment adviser. connection with the reorganization and expected liabilities. Filing Date: The application was filed liquidation. Filing Date: The applications were on October 1, 2010. Filing Dates: The applications were filed on October 8, 2010. Applicant’s Address: Wells Asset filed on August 3, 2010, and amended Applicants’ Address: 45 East Putnam Management, Inc., 6200 The Corners on October 22, 2010. Ave., Suite 124, Greenwich, CT 06830. Parkway, Norcross, GA 30092. Applicants’ Address: Federated Morgan Stanley Global Opportunity Hyperion Brookfield Collateralized Investors Funds, 4000 Ericsson Dr., Bond Fund, Inc. [File No. 811–8460] Securities Fund, Inc. Warrendale, PA 15086–7561. Summary: Applicant, a closed-end [File No. 811–21466] Stone Harbor Credit Recovery Income investment company, seeks an order Summary: Applicant, a closed-end Fund [File No. 811–22330]; Stone declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company, seeks an order Harbor Local Markets Income Fund investment company. On January 25, declaring that it has ceased to be an [File No. 811–22068] 2010, applicant transferred its assets to investment company. On August 6, Summary: Each applicant, a closed- Morgan Stanley Emerging Markets Debt 2010, applicant made a final liquidating end investment company, seeks an Fund, Inc., based on net asset value. distribution to its shareholders, based order declaring that it has ceased to be Expenses of approximately $169,949 on net asset value. Expenses of $38,500 an investment company. Applicants incurred in connection with the incurred in connection with the have never made a public offering of reorganization were paid by applicant liquidation were paid by applicant. their securities and do not propose to and the acquiring fund. Filing Date: The application was filed make a public offering or engage in Filing Dates: The application was on September 21, 2010. business of any kind. filed on October 4, 2010 and amended Applicant’s Address: Three World Filing Dates: The applications were on October 14, 2010. Financial Center, 200 Vesey St., 10th filed on September 16, 2010 and Applicant’s Address: c/o Morgan Floor, New York, NY 10281–1010. September 20, 2010, respectively, and Stanley Investment Management Inc., ICAP Funds, Inc. [File No. 811–8850] each was amended on October 14, 2010. 522 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10036. Applicants’ Address: ALPS Fund Summary: Applicant seeks an order Services, Inc., 1290 Broadway, Suite Emerging Markets Portfolio declaring that it has ceased to be an 1100, Denver, CO 80203. [File No. 811–8332] investment company. On February 26, Summary: Applicant seeks an order 2010, each series of applicant Pioneer Municipal and Equity Income declaring that it has ceased to be an transferred its assets to the Trust [File No. 811–21448] investment company. On September 24, corresponding shell series of MainStay Summary: Applicant, a closed-end 2010, applicant made a liquidating Funds Trust, based on net asset value. investment company, seeks an order distribution to its shareholders, based Expenses of $108,347 incurred in declaring that it has ceased to be an on net asset value. No expenses were connection with the reorganization were investment company. Between October incurred in connection with the paid by applicant. 6, 2008 and October 24, 2008, applicant liquidation. Filing Date: The application was filed redeemed its auction market preferred Filing Date: The application was filed on October 8, 2010. shares at $25,000 per share, plus an on October 6, 2010. Applicant’s Address: 51 Madison amount equal to accumulated but Applicant’s Address: Two Ave., New York, NY 10010. unpaid dividends. On October 24, 2008, International Place, Boston, MA 02110. applicant transferred its assets to Castle Convertible Fund, Inc. Pioneer Tax Free Income Fund, based Pennsylvania Avenue Funds [File No. 811–2213] on net asset value. Expenses of [File No. 811–21253] Summary: Applicant, a closed-end approximately $257,023 incurred in Summary: Applicant seeks an order investment company, seeks an order connection with the reorganization were declaring that it has ceased to be an declaring that it has ceased to be an paid by applicant. investment company. On June 7, 2010, investment company. On January 9, Filing Dates: The application was applicant transferred its assets to 2009, applicant transferred its assets to filed on November 12, 2009, and Quaker Event Arbitrage Fund, a series of Alger Convertible Fund, a series of The amended on September 29, 2010. Quaker Investment Trust, based on net Alger Funds, based on net asset value. Applicant’s Address: 60 State St., asset value. Expenses of $1,740 incurred Expenses of $120,000 incurred in Boston, MA 02109. in connection with the reorganization connection with the reorganization were were paid by applicant. paid by Fred Alger Management, Inc., Torrey US Strategy Partners, LLC Filing Date: The application was filed applicant’s investment adviser. [File No. 811–21066]; on October 7, 2010. Filing Date: The application was filed Torrey International Strategy Partners, Applicant’s Address: 260 Water St., on October 14, 2010. LLC [File No. 811–21067] Brooklyn, NY 11201. Applicant’s Address: 111 Fifth Ave., Summary: Each applicant, a closed- New York, NY 10003. end investment company, seeks an Wells Family of Real Estate Funds order declaring that it has ceased to be [File No. 811–8355] Templeton Capital Accumulator Fund an investment company. On July 27, Summary: Applicant seeks an order [File No. 811–6198] 2010, each applicant made a final declaring that it has ceased to be an Summary: Applicant seeks an order liquidating distribution to its investment company. On December 18, declaring that it has ceased to be an shareholders, based on net asset value. 2009, applicant made a liquidating investment company. On May 20, 2005, Expenses of approximately $128,797 distribution to its shareholders, based applicant transferred its assets to and $37,004, respectively, incurred in on net asset value. Expenses of $221,161 Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., based on connection with the liquidations were incurred in connection with the net asset value. Expenses of $376,699 paid by applicants. Applicants have liquidation were paid by Wells Asset incurred in connection with the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68012 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

reorganization were paid one-quarter by (‘‘Commission’’) intends to issue an business as a transfer agent. the applicant, one-quarter by Templeton order, pursuant to Section 17A(c)(4)(B) Accordingly, at any time after December Growth Fund, Inc., one-quarter by of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15, 2010, the Commission intends to Templeton Investment Counsel, LLC, (‘‘Act’’),1 cancelling the registrations of issue an order cancelling the the applicant’s investment manager, and the transfer agents whose names appear registrations of the transfer agents listed one-quarter by Templeton Global in the attached Appendix. in the Appendix. Advisors Limited, Templeton Growth FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry The representative of any transfer Fund, Inc.’s investment manager. W. Carpenter, Assistant Director, or Filing Dates: The application was agent listed in the Appendix who David Karasik, Special Counsel, at (202) believes the registration of the transfer filed on August 11, 2010 and amended 551–5710, U.S. Securities and Exchange agent should not be cancelled must on October 22, 2010. Commission, Division of Trading and notify the Commission in writing or by Applicant’s Address: 500 East Markets, Room 7321 SP1, 100 F Street, Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL NE., Washington, DC 20549–7010 or by e-mail prior to December 15, 2010. 33394–3091. e-mail at [email protected] Written notifications may be mailed to For the Commission, by the Division of with the phrase ‘‘Notice of Intention To Office of Clearance and Settlement, Investment Management, pursuant to Cancel Transfer Agent Registration’’ in Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. delegated authority. the subject line. Securities and Exchange Commission, Florence E. Harmon, Room 7321 SP1, 100 F Street NE., Background Deputy Secretary. Washington, DC 20459–7010. E-mail [FR Doc. 2010–27861 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Act notifications may be sent to BILLING CODE 8011–01–P provides that if the Commission finds [email protected] with the that any transfer agent registered with phrase ‘‘Notice of Intention To Cancel the Commission is no longer in Transfer Agent Registration’’ in the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE existence or has ceased to do business subject line. COMMISSION as a transfer agent, the Commission shall by order cancel that transfer For the Commission by the Division of [Release No. 34–63211] Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated agent’s registration. 2 Although the Commission has made authority. Notice of Intention To Cancel Florence E. Harmon, Registrations of Certain Transfer efforts to locate and to determine the Agents status of each of the transfer agents Deputy Secretary. listed in the Appendix, based on the October 29, 2010. facts it has, the Commission believes Notice is hereby given that the that each of those transfer agents is no Securities and Exchange Commission longer in existence or has ceased doing

APPENDIX

Transfer agent File No.

Advest Transfer Services, Inc ...... 8405855 AGN Associates & Stock Transfer Services, LLC ...... 8406255 Amazon Natural Treasures.com, Inc ...... 8405839 Beverly National Corporation ...... 8505474 Capital Fund Services, Inc ...... 8405909 Capital Fund Services, Inc ...... 8405683 Century Realty Trust Co ...... 8400082 CNB Bancorp, Inc ...... 8505383 Compushare Transfer Corporation ...... 8406194 Endless Investments, LLC ...... 8406178 Electrochemical Industries Frutarom Inc ...... 8400814 First Choice National Stock Transfer Agency Inc ...... 8406154 Fortune Fund Administration, Inc ...... 8405672 Francine Goodman (dba Maximvs Transfer Services) ...... 8405926 GTI Corporate Transfer Agents LLC ...... 8406151 Guarantee Services Corp ...... 8406145 Hola Corp ...... 8406047 Howard Johnson & Company ...... 8405555 InCap Fund Administration, Inc ...... 8406124 Incorp Stock Transfer Inc ...... 8406042 International Acquisitions & Holdings, Inc ...... 8406164 Kingsdale Shareholder Services Inc ...... 8406188 Lapeer County Bank & Trust Co ...... 8505250 Legends Financial Holding, Inc ...... 8505534 Liberty Transfer Company ...... 8405474 Manchester Benefits Group, Ltd ...... 8405891 Manchester Exchange Trust Limited ...... 8405810 McGladrey & Pullen, LLP ...... 8405806 Mercantile Bancorp, Inc ...... 8406226 Nicholas Vito Pelletiere Security West Stock Transfer ...... 8406090 NuWave eSolutions Private Limited ...... 8406170

1 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(c)(4)(B). 2 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(22).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68013

APPENDIX—Continued

Transfer agent File No.

Pacific Stock Transfers Inc ...... 8406088 Public Stock Transfer Company dba/Public Ease ...... 8405866 Royalty Stock Transfer ...... 8406189 Select American Transfer Co ...... 8406152 Select Fidelity Transfer Services Ltd ...... 8406139 Syntel, Inc ...... 8406142 Technology Funding Capital Corporation ...... 8405738 The Commercial Bank ...... 8405867 The Northern Savings & Loan Company ...... 8405867 The Nyhart Company, Inc ...... 8405722 Trustmark Stock & Transfer Inc ...... 8406073 UAC Inc ...... 8400293 Wall Street Stock Transfer Corp ...... 8406246 Wulf International, Ltd ...... 8406180

[FR Doc. 2010–27857 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] certain deposits made through DTC’s bar-coded deposit tickets to print at the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Deposit Automation Management participant’s office on dedicated thermal (‘‘DAM’’) system. printers.7 The bar-coded deposit tickets contain a variety of information II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE required for DTC’s processing of Statement of the Purpose of, and COMMISSION deposits. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Since IBM’s recent announcement [Release No. 34–63208; File No. SR–DTC– Change 2010–13] that it would no longer support SNA, In its filing with the Commission, DTC has begun making the deposit Self-Regulatory Organizations; The DTC included statements concerning tickets available in PDF format. The Depository Trust Company; Notice of the purpose of and basis for the method used by participants to initiate Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of proposed rule change and discussed any the print process did not change but Proposed Rule Change To Implement a comments it received on the proposed rather than send the deposit tickets to a Disincentive Fee Associated With the rule change. The text of these statements dedicated thermal printer at the Deposit Automation Management may be examined at the places specified participant’s location, DTC ‘‘pushes’’ the System in Item IV below. DTC has prepared deposit tickets to the requesting summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), participant’s work station in PDF format October 28, 2010. and (C) below, of the most significant where the ticket can then be printed Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the aspects of these statements.4 from any printer attached to that work Securities Exchange Act of 1934 station (‘‘PDF method’’). This process (‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on (A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s eliminates the need for participants to October 18, 2010, The Depository Trust Statement of the Purpose of, and use expensive thermal printers or ‘‘peel- Company (‘‘DTC’’) filed with the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule off’’ bar code labels. Securities and Exchange Commission Change Effective October 8, 2010, DTC retired (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule The DAM system allows participants the outdated and unsupported SNA change described in Items I and II to transmit details of a deposit before ticket print stream and the use of ‘‘peel- below, which items have been prepared forwarding physical securities to DTC. off’’ adhesive bar code labels. primarily by DTC.2 DTC filed the Under the DAM system, a participant is Participants continue to have the ability proposed rule change pursuant to able to send to DTC details regarding to produce DAM deposit tickets for Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) and Rule 19b– securities that the participant plans to submission to DTC using the PDF 4(f)(3) thereunder so that the proposed deposit.5 DTC uses the deposit details to method. Effective Monday, November 1, rule change was effective upon filing determine whether the proposed deposit 2010, all DAM deposits received by DTC with the Commission.3 The Commission is acceptable by checking for such must be accompanied by a deposit ticket is publishing this notice to solicit things as issue eligibility, chill status, printed using the PDF method. Pursuant comments on the proposed rule change correct CUSIP information, etc. The to this rule change, all deposits received from interested parties. deposit detail information is stored in without a DAM deposit ticket generated DTC’s database. Upon the submitting using the PDF method will continue to I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s participant’s initiation, DTC’s systems be processed by DTC but will incur a Statement of the Terms of Substance of send a transmission to the submitting $100.00 processing fee in addition to the the Proposed Rule Change participant’s printer using a Systems current DAM deposit fee. The proposed rule change will amend Network Architecture (‘‘SNA’’) DTC believes that the proposed rule DTC rules to provide that DTC will connection.6 The transmission causes change is consistent with the impose a new disincentive fee for requirements of Section 17A of the Act 8 4 The Commission has modified the text of the and the rules and regulations 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). summaries prepared by the DTC. thereunder that are applicable to DTC 2 The text of the proposed rule change is attached 5 Participants send the deposit details to DTC as Exhibit 5 to DTC’s filing, which is available at using either a Participant Terminal System message 7 Some participants with low volumes of deposits http://www.dtcc.com/downloands/legal/ (‘‘DAMP’’), a PBS transmission, or a CF2DEP file. have elected to use ‘‘peel-off’’ adhesive bar code rule_filings/2010/dtc/2010–13.pdf. 6 SNA is a network system developed by IBM in labels instead of investing in expensive thermal 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii) and 17 CFR 240.19b– the early 1980s to move large amounts of data printers. 4(f)(3). through the Internet. 8 15 U.S.C. 78q–1.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

because the proposed rule will promote Securities and Exchange Commission, (‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on efficiencies in DTC’s DAM service, and 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC October 18, 2010 the Fixed Income as such, it should help DTC remove 20549–1090. Clearing Corporation (‘‘FICC’’) filed with undue impediments to and perfect the All submissions should refer to File the Securities and Exchange mechanism of a national system for the Number SR–DTC–2010–13. This file Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the clearance and settlement of securities number should be included on the proposed rule change as described in transactions. subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared primarily by FICC. FICC (B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission process and review your filed the proposed rule change pursuant Statement on Burden on Competition comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 2 and DTC does not believe that the post all comments on the Commission’s Rule 19b–4(f)(2) 3 thereunder so that the proposed rule change will impose any Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ proposal was effective upon filing with burden on competition that is not rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the the Commission. The Commission is necessary or appropriate in furtherance submission, all subsequent publishing this notice to solicit of the purposes of the Act. amendments, all written statements comments on the proposed rule change (C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s with respect to the proposed rule from interested persons. Statement on Comments on the change that are filed with the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Proposed Rule Change Received From Commission, and all written Statement of the Terms of Substance of Members, Participants, or Others communications relating to the the Proposed Rule Change proposed rule change between the No written comments relating to the Commission and any person, other than The proposed rule change amends proposed rule change have been those that may be withheld from the FICC’s Government Securities Division’s solicited or received. DTC will notify public in accordance with the (‘‘GSD’’) Fee Structure to add a monthly the Commission of any written provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be fee of $250 for GCF participants with comments received by DTC. available for Web site viewing and the exception of the GCF inter-dealer III. Date of Effectiveness of the printing in the Commission’s Public brokers for the development and Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., maintenance of the DTCC GCF Repo Commission Action Washington, DC 20549, on official Index. business days between the hours of II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s The foregoing rule change has become 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings Statement of the Purpose of, and effective upon filing pursuant to Section also will be available for inspection and 9 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act and Rule copying at the principal office of DTC 10 Change 19b–4(f)(3) thereunder because it and on DTC’s Web site, http:// establishes or changes a due, fee, or www.dtcc.com. All comments received In its filing with the Commission, other charge imposed by DTC. At any will be posted without change; the FICC included statements concerning time within sixty days of the filing of Commission does not edit personal the purpose of and basis for the such rule change, the Commission identifying information from proposed rule change and discussed any summarily may temporarily suspend submissions. You should submit only comments it received on the proposed such rule change if it appears to the information that you wish to make rule change. The text of these statements Commission that such action is available publicly. All submissions may be examined at the places specified necessary or appropriate in the public should refer to File Number SR–DTC– in Item IV below. FICC has prepared interest, for the protection of investors, 2010–13 and should be submitted on or summaries, set forth in sections A, B, or otherwise in furtherance of the before November 26, 2010. and C below, of the most significant purposes of the Act. For the Commission by the Division of aspects of such statements. IV. Solicitation of Comments Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 11 A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Interested persons are invited to authority. Statement of the Purpose of, and submit written data, views, and Florence E. Harmon, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule arguments concerning the foregoing, Deputy Secretary. Change including whether the proposed rule [FR Doc. 2010–27856 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] change is consistent with the Act. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P The proposed rule change amends the Comments may be submitted by any of GSD Fee Structure to add a monthly fee the following methods: of $250 for GCF participants with the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE exception of the GCF inter-dealer Electronic Comments COMMISSION brokers for the development and • Use the Commission’s Internet maintenance of the DTCC GCF Repo [Release No. 34–63215; File No. SR–FICC– Index. This fee will become effective as comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 2010–07] rules/sro.shtml) or of December 1, 2010. The index will • Send an e-mail to rule- Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed provide the daily weighted average of [email protected]. Please include File Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of the general collateral rate for each of the Number SR–DTC–2010–13 on the Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of three most highly traded GCF Repo subject line. Proposed Rule Change Relating to a CUSIPs along with the total par value of Proposed Fee all daily transactions in each CUSIP. Paper Comments FICC plans to post the index daily on • Send paper comments in triplicate October 29, 2010. FICC’s Web site. to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 2 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(3). 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68015

FICC states that the proposed rule Paper Comments SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE change is consistent with the • COMMISSION requirements of Section 17A of the Act 4 Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, and the rules and regulations [Release No. 34–63213; File No. SR–CBOE– thereunder because the DTCC GCF Repo Securities and Exchange Commission, 2010–098] Index provides additional transparency Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., to the funding market by making data Washington, DC 20549–1090. Self-Regulatory Organizations; available that is generated by GSD’s GCF All submissions should refer to File No. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Repo product. SR–FICC–2010–07. This file number Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s should be included on the subject line Rule Change Related to Market Maker Statement on Burden on Competition if e-mail is used. To help the Tier Appointment Cost for SPX Commission process and review your FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any comments more efficiently, please use October 29, 2010. impact or impose any burden on only one method. The Commission will Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the competition. post all comments on the Commission’s Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the notice is hereby given that on October C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s submission, all subsequent 25, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Statement on Comments on the amendments, all written statements Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘Exchange’’ or Proposed Rule Change Received from with respect to the proposed rule ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and Members, Participants, or Others change that are filed with the Exchange Commission (the FICC has not solicited or received Commission, and all written ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule written comments relating to the communications relating to the change as described in Items I and II proposed rule change. FICC will notify proposed rule change between the below, which Items have been prepared the Commission of any comments it Commission and any person, other than by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the receives. those that may be withheld from the proposal as a ‘‘non-controversial’’ public in accordance with the proposed rule change pursuant to III. Date of Effectiveness of the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.4 The Commission Action available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission’s Public Commission is publishing this notice to The foregoing rule change has become Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., solicit comments on the proposed rule effective pursuant to Section Washington, DC 20549, on official change from interested persons. 5 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and Rule 19b– business days between the hours of 10 I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 6 4(f)(2) because the proposed rule a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings Statement of the Terms of Substance of change establishes or changes a due, fee, also will be available for inspection and the Proposed Rule Change or other charge applicable only to a copying at FICC’s principal office and member. At any time within 60 days of on FICC’s Web site at http://ficc.com/ The Exchange proposes to amend the filing of the proposed rule change, gov/gov.docs.jsp?NS-query=#rf. All CBOE rules relating to the appointment the Commission summarily may comments received will be posted cost for options on the Standard and temporarily suspend such rule change if Poor’s 500 Index (SPX). The text of the without change; the Commission does it appears to the Commission that such proposed rule change is available on the not edit personal identifying action is necessary or appropriate in the Exchange’s Web site (http:// information from submissions. You public interest, for the protection of www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange’s investors, or otherwise in furtherance of should submit only information that Office of the Secretary, and at the the purposes of the Act. you wish to make available publicly. All Commission’s Public Reference Room. submission should refer to File No. SR– IV. Solicitation of Comments FICC–2010–07 and should be submitted II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Interested persons are invited to on or before November 26, 2010. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule submit written data, views, and For the Commission by the Division of Change arguments concerning the foregoing, Trading and Markets pursuant to delegated including whether the proposed rule authority.7 In its filing with the Commission, the change is consistent with the Act. Florence E. Harmon, self-regulatory organization included Comments may be submitted by any of Deputy Secretary. statements concerning the purpose of the following methods: [FR Doc. 2010–27860 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] and basis for the proposed rule change Electronic Comments and discussed any comments it received BILLING CODE 8011–01–P on the proposed rule change. The text • Use the Commission’s Internet of those statements may be examined at comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ the places specified in Item IV below. rules/sro.shtml) or The Exchange has prepared summaries, • Send an e-mail to rule- set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, [email protected]. Please include File of the most significant parts of such No. SR–FICC–2010–07 on the subject statements. line. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 4 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 5 Supra note 2. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 6 Supra note 3. 7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 2. Statutory Basis action is necessary or appropriate in the Statement of the Purpose of, and the The Exchange believes the proposed public interest, for the protection of Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule rule change is consistent with the Act investors, or otherwise in furtherance of Change and the rules and regulations under the the purposes of the Act. 1. Purpose Act applicable to a national securities IV. Solicitation of Comments exchange and, in particular, the Interested persons are invited to The purpose of this rule change is to requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.8 submit written data, views, and amend CBOE Rule 8.3, Appointment of Specifically, the Exchange believes the arguments concerning the foregoing, Market-Makers, to revise the proposed rule change is consistent with including whether the proposed rule appointment cost for SPX options. the Section 6(b)(5) Act 9 requirements change is consistent with the Act. Specifically, CBOE is proposing to that the rules of an exchange be Comments may be submitted by any of amend Rule 8.3(c)(iii) to increase the designed to promote just and equitable the following methods: appointment cost for SPX from .95 to principles of trade, to prevent 1.0. Among other reasons, the Exchange fraudulent and manipulative acts and, Electronic Comments believes the appointment cost change is in general, to protect investors and the • reasonable in light of the planned Use the Commission’s Internet public interest. Among other reasons, comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ introduction of a multi-platform feature the Exchange believes that the to SPX (discussed below). rules/sro.shtml); or appointment cost change for SPX is • Send an e-mail to rule- By way of background, CBOE reasonable in light of the introduction of [email protected]. Please include File currently operates the Hybrid Trading the multi-platform feature to SPX. Number SR–CBOE–2010–098 on the System and the Hybrid 3.0 Platform.5 subject line. The particular trading platform on B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s which index options and options on Statement on Burden on Competition Paper Comments exchange-traded funds (‘‘ETFs’’) are CBOE does not believe that the • Send paper comments in triplicate traded are designated by the Exchange proposed rule change will impose any to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, on a class-by-class basis pursuant to burden on competition that is not Securities and Exchange Commission, Rule 8.14, Index Hybrid Trading System necessary or appropriate in furtherance 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Classes: Market-Maker Participants. of the purposes of the Act. 20549–1090. However, CBOE recently submitted a C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s All submissions should refer to File rule change to amend Rule 8.14 to Statement on Comments on the Number SR–CBOE–2010–098. This file provide that, for each Hybrid 3.0 class, Proposed Rule Change Received From number should be included on the the Exchange may determine to Members, Participants or Others subject line if e-mail is used. To help the authorize a group of series of the class The Exchange neither solicited nor Commission process and review your for trading on the Hybrid Trading comments more efficiently, please use 6 received comments on the proposal. System. only one method. The Commission will Currently, all series of the SPX option III. Date of Effectiveness of the post all comments on the Commission’s class trade on the Hybrid 3.0 Platform. Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Pursuant to Rule 8.14, as amended, the Commission Action rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Exchange may determine to designate a Because the foregoing proposed rule submission, all subsequent group of series in the SPX index option change does not: (i) Significantly affect amendments, all written statements class for trading on the Hybrid Trading the protection of investors or the public with respect to the proposed rule System. In conjunction with this interest; (ii) impose any significant change that are filed with the change, the Exchange is proposing to burden on competition; and (iii) become Commission, and all written increase the SPX appointment cost from operative prior to 30 days from the date communications relating to the .95 back to 1.0 effective December 1, on which it was filed, or such shorter proposed rule change between the 2010.7 The appointment cost would time as the Commission may designate Commission and any person, other than confer the right to trade in open outcry if consistent with the protection of those that may be withheld from the the SPX series that are traded on the investors and the public interest, the public in accordance with the Hybrid 3.0 Platform and also confer the proposed rule change has become provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be right to trade any group of series of SPX effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) available for Web site viewing and that the exchange may determine to of the Act 10 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) printing in the Commission’s Public authorize for trading on the Hybrid thereunder.11 Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Trading System pursuant to Rule 8.14, At any time within 60 days of the Washington, DC 20549, on official as amended. filing of the proposed rule change, the business days between the hours of 10 Commission summarily may a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also 5 The ‘‘Hybrid Trading System’’ refers to the temporarily suspend such rule change if will be available for inspection and Exchange’s trading platform that allows Market- it appears to the Commission that such Makers to submit electronic quotes in their copying at the principal office of the appointed classes. The ‘‘Hybrid 3.0 Platform’’ is an self-regulatory organization. All electronic trading platform on the Hybrid Trading 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). comments received will be posted System that allows one or more quoters to submit 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). without change; the Commission does electronic quotes which represent the aggregate 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). not edit personal identifying Market-Maker quoting interest in the series for the 11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule trading crowd. See Rule 1.1(aaa). 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory information from submissions. You 6 See SR–CBOE–2010–095. organization to give the Commission notice of its should submit only information that 7 The Exchange notes that the appointment cost intent to file the proposed rule change, along with you wish to make available publicly. All for SPX had previously been 1.0. See Securities a brief description and text of the proposed rule submissions should refer to File Exchange Act Release No. 57752 (May 1, 2008), change, at least five business days prior to the date 73 FR 25813 (May 7, 2008) (SR–CBOE–2008–051) of filing of the proposed rule change, or such Number SR–CBOE–2010–098 and (immediately effective rule change that changed the shorter time as designated by the Commission. should be submitted on or before SPX appointment cost from 1.0 to .95). CBOE has satisfied this requirement. November 26, 2010.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68017

For the Commission, by the Division of Dated: October 21, 2010. constitutional presence in the United Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Hillary Rodham Clinton, States, because to do so would render 12 authority. Secretary of State. ineffectual the measures authorized in Florence E. Harmon, [FR Doc. 2010–27785 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] the Order. Deputy Secretary. BILLING CODE 4710–10–P This notice shall be published in the [FR Doc. 2010–27858 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Federal Register. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Dated: October 21, 2010. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Hillary Rodham Clinton, [Public Notice 7223] Secretary of State, Department of State. DEPARTMENT OF STATE [FR Doc. 2010–27787 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Designation of Jundallah, Also Known BILLING CODE 4710–10–P as People’s Resistance Movement of [Public Notice 7222] Iran (PMRI), Also Known as Jonbesh- i Moqavemat-i-Mardom-i Iran, Also DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Designation of Jundallah, Also Known Known as Popular Resistance as People’s Resistance Movement of Movement of Iran, Also Known As Office of the Secretary of Iran (PMRI), Also Known as Jonbesh- Soldiers of God, Also Known as Transportation i Moqavemat-i-Mardom-i Iran, Also Fedayeen-e-Islam, Also Known as Known as The Popular Resistance Former Jundallah of Iran, Also Known [DOT Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0074] Movement of Iran, Also Known as as Jundullah, Also Known as Soldiers of God, Also Known as Jondullah, Also Known as Jundollah, The Future of Aviation Advisory Fedayeen-e-Islam, Also Known as Also Known as Jondollah, Also Known Committee (FAAC) Environment Former Jundallah of Iran, Also Known as Jondallah, Also Known as Army of Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting as Jundullah, Also Known as God (God’s Army), Also Known as the AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Jondullah, Also Known as Jundollah, Baloch Peoples Resistance Movement Transportation, U.S. Department of Also Known as Jondollah, Also Known (BPRM), as a Specially Designated Transportation. as Jondallah, Also Known as Army of Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section ACTION: The Future of Aviation God (God’s Army), Also Known as the 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Advisory Committee (FAAC) Baloch Peoples Resistance Movement Amended Environment Subcommittee; Notice of (BPRM), as a Foreign Terrorist Federal Advisory Committee Meeting. Organization Pursuant to Section 219 Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of of the Immigration and Nationality Act, SUMMARY: The Department of as Amended Executive Order 13224 of September 23, Transportation (DOT), Office of the 2001, as amended by Executive Order Secretary of Transportation, announces 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Based upon a review of the a meeting of the FAAC Environment Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I Administrative Record assembled in Subcommittee, which will be held by hereby determine that the organization this matter, and in consultation with the teleconference. This notice announces known as also known as Jundallah, and Attorney General and the Secretary of the date and time of the meeting, which also known as People’s Resistance the Treasury, I conclude that there is a will be open to the public. The purpose Movement of Iran (PMRI), also known sufficient factual basis to find that the of the FAAC is to provide advice and as Jonbesh-i Moqavemat-i-Mardom-i- relevant circumstances described in recommendations to the Secretary of Iran, also known as Popular Resistance section 219 of the Immigration and Transportation to ensure the Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter Movement of Iran, also known as Soldiers of God, also known as competitiveness of the U.S. aviation ‘‘INA’’) (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with industry and its capability to manage respect to Jundallah, also known as Fedayeen-e-Islam, also known as Former Jundallah of Iran, also known as effectively the evolving transportation People’s Resistance Movement of Iran needs, challenges, and opportunities of (PMRI), also known as Jonbesh-i Jundullah, also known as Jondullah, also known as Jundollah, also known as the global economy. The Environment Moqavemat-i-Mardom-i Iran, also Subcommittee is charged with known as The Popular Resistance Jondollah, also known as Jondallah, also known as Army of God (God’s Army) examining steps and strategies that can Movement of Iran, also known as be taken by aviation-sector stakeholders Soldiers of God, also known as and also known as the Baloch Peoples Resistance Movement (BPRM) and the Federal Government to reduce Fedayeen-e-Islam, also known as aviation’s environmental footprint and Former Jundallah of Iran, also known as committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that foster sustainability gains in cost- Jundullah, also known as Jondullah, effective ways. This includes also known as Jundollah, also known as threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or consideration of potential approaches to Jondollah, also known as Jondallah, also promote effective international actions known as Army of God (God’s Army) economy of the United States. Consistent with the determination in through the International Civil Aviation and also known as the Baloch Peoples section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that Organization. Resistance Movement (BPRM). ‘‘prior notice to persons determined to DATES: The meeting will be held on Therefore, I hereby designate the be subject to the Order who might have November 16, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 12 aforementioned organization and its a constitutional presence in the United p.m. Eastern Standard Time. aliases as a Foreign Terrorist States would render ineffectual the ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held Organization pursuant to section 219 of blocking and other measures authorized via teleconference. Call-in information the INA. in the Order because of the ability to will be provided to members of the This determination shall be published transfer funds instantaneously,’’ I public who register to participate. in the Federal Register. determine that no prior notice needs to Public Access: The meeting is open to be provided to any person subject to this the public. (See below for registration 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). determination who might have a instructions.)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Public Comments: Persons wishing to 267–3577; fax (202) 267–5594; Introduction and Background offer written comments and suggestions [email protected]. concerning the activities of the advisory Title 49 of the U.S. Code 47134 Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, authorizes the Secretary of committee or Environment 2010. Transportation, and through delegation, Subcommittee should file comments in Pamela Hamilton-Powell, the Public Docket (Docket Number the FAA Administrator, to exempt a Designated Federal Official, Future of DOT–OST–2010–0074 at http:// Aviation Advisory Committee. sponsor of a public use airport that has www.regulations.gov) or alternatively received Federal assistance, from certain [FR Doc. 2010–27862 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] through the [email protected] e-mail. If Federal requirements in connection comments and suggestions are intended BILLING CODE P with the privatization of the airport by specifically for the Environment sale or lease to a private party. Subcommittee, the term ‘‘Environment’’ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Specifically, the Administrator may should be listed in the subject line of exempt the sponsor from all or part of the message. To ensure such comments Federal Aviation Administration the requirements to use airport revenues can be considered by the subcommittee for airport-related purposes, to pay back before its November 16, 2010, meeting, [Docket No. 2010–1052] a portion of Federal grants upon the sale public comments must be filed by 5 or lease of an airport, and to return p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, Airport Privatization Pilot Program airport property deeded by the Federal November 12, 2010. Government upon transfer of the airport. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Federal Aviation The Administrator is also authorized to Background Administration (FAA), DOT. exempt the private purchaser or lessee Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal ACTION: Notice of Receipt and from the requirement to use all airport Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. Acceptance for Review: Preliminary revenues for airport-related purposes, to 2), we are giving notice of a meeting of Application for Airglades Airport (2IS), the extent necessary to permit the the Environment Subcommittee of the Clewiston, Florida. purchaser or lessee to earn FAAC taking place on November 16, compensation from the operations of the 2010, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation airport. Standard Time. The meeting will be Administration (FAA) has completed its On September 16, 1997, the Federal held by teleconference. The agenda review of Hendry County and Airglades Aviation Administration issued a notice includes completing and prioritizing the Airport’s preliminary application for of procedures to be used in applications Environment Subcommittee’s participation in the airport privatization for exemption under Airport recommendations to the FAAC. pilot program received under 49 U.S.C. Privatization Pilot Program (62 FR Section 47134. The preliminary Registration 48693). A request for participation in application is accepted for review, with The meeting can accommodate up to a filing date of October 6, 2010. Hendry the Pilot Program must be initiated by 15 members of the public. Persons County, the airport sponsor, may select the filing of either a preliminary or final desiring to call in must pre-register a private operator, negotiate an application for exemption with the through e-mail to [email protected] by 5 agreement and submit a final FAA. p.m. Eastern Standard Time Friday, application to the FAA for exemption Hendry County submitted an initial November 12, 2010. The term under the pilot program. preliminary application to the Airport ‘‘Registration: Environment’’ should be 49 U.S.C. Section 47134 establishes Privatization Pilot Program for Airglades listed in the subject line of the message Airport on August 31, 2010. The FAA and participation will be limited to the an airport privatization pilot program requested additional information and first 15 persons to pre-register and and authorizes the Department of Hendry County submitted that receive a confirmation of their pre- Transportation to grant exemptions from registration. Instructions for certain Federal statutory and regulatory information on October 6, 2010— the participating by phone will be provided requirements for up to five airport filing date of this preliminary with registration confirmation. privatization projects. The application application. The County may select a Minutes of the meeting will be taken procedures require the FAA to publish private operator, negotiate an agreement and will be made available to the a notice in the Federal Register after and submit a final application to the public. review of a preliminary application. The FAA for exemption. FAA must publish a notice of receipt of If FAA accepts the final application Requests for Special Accommodation the final application in the Federal for review, the application will be made Register for public review and comment The DOT is committed to providing available for public review and equal access to this meeting for all for a sixty-day period. The Airglades comment for a sixty-day period. participants. If you need alternative Airport preliminary application is formats or services because of a available for public review at http:// Issued in Washington, DC on October 20, disability, please send a request to www.regulations.gov. The docket 2010. [email protected] with the term ‘‘Special number is FAA Docket Number 2010– Randall S. Fiertz, Accommodations’’ listed in the subject 1052. Director, Office of Airport Compliance and line of the message by close of business Field Operations. Friday, November 12, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Cushing (202–267–8348) Airport [FR Doc. 2010–27896 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Compliance Division, ACO–100, Federal BILLING CODE P Lynne Pickard, Deputy Director, Office Aviation Administration, 800 of Environment and Energy, Federal Independence Ave., SW., Washington, Aviation Administration, 800 DC 20591. Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68019

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: limitations for rebuilding, it is Murray A. Bloom, Chief, Division of appropriate for CCF vessels to meet only Maritime Administration Maritime Programs, Office of Chief the single test for Coast Guard and Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 MARAD. [Docket No. MARAD–2007–0012] New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC Chapter 553 of title 46, United States 20590; Ph. (202) 366–5320, fax: (202) Code, provides that preference be given RIN 2133–AB69 366–3511; or e-mail in the carriage of U.S. Government- [email protected]. impelled cargoes to privately-owned Determination of Foreign commercial vessels of the United States. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reconstruction or Rebuilding of U.S.- The statute excludes any vessel rebuilt Built Vessels That Participate in the I. Background in a foreign country, unless the vessel Capital Construction Fund and Cargo shall have been documented under U.S. Preference Programs Three maritime promotional statutes mandate use of U.S.-built vessels and registry for at least three years prior to AGENCY: Maritime Administration, generally provide that a U.S.-built vessel seeking preference cargoes. MARAD regulations at 46 CFR part 381 govern Department of Transportation. becomes ineligible to carry preference shipment of preference cargoes. To ACTION: Notice of Withdrawal. cargo if the vessel is determined to have assess rebuilding under cargo preference been reconstructed or rebuilt in a rules, MARAD examines the extent of SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration foreign country. shipyard work and whether vessel type (MARAD) is withdrawing and Section 12132(b) of title 46, United has been or would be changed, and how terminating its notice published in the States Code, provides that a vessel the changes to the vessel would affect Federal Register on November 14, 2007, eligible to engage in the U.S. coastwise trade, U.S. shipyards, and purposes and at 72 FR 64109, which requested trade and later rebuilt outside the policy of the Merchant Marine Act. comments on what standards MARAD United States may no longer engage in MARAD’s authority to apply a standard should apply concerning determinations the coastwise trade. This statute is to rebuilding determinations, different of foreign reconstruction of U.S.-built administered by the U.S. Coast Guard. vessels that participate in the Capital from the Coast Guard’s, was affirmed in The Coast Guard’s regulations that Aquarius Marine Co. v. Pena, 64 F.3d 82 Construction Fund (CCF) program and implement the statute are set forth in 46 foreign rebuilding of U.S.-built vessels (2nd Cir. 1995). This case was followed CFR part 67. In determining whether a by MARAD’s final opinions in Barge that participate in the cargo preference vessel has been rebuilt, the Coast Guard program. Initially, when the notice was Connor, Docket No. A–198 (Oct. 26, examines the amount of steel replaced 2005) and Matson Navigation Company, published, it was considered useful to on a vessel. The Coast Guard’s obtain public comment on whether MARAD Docket No. A–199 (Dec. 9, interpretation of its regulations 2008). MARAD should issue regulations on regarding rebuilding was affirmed in standards applicable to determination of Shipbuilders Council of America, Inc. v. II. Summary of the Notice rebuilding or reconstruction. At the time United States Coast Guard, 578 F.3d On November 14, 2007, MARAD the notice was published, the Coast 234 (4th Cir. 2009) and followed in the published a notice requesting Guard’s approach to rebuilding was an more recent case decided December 3, comments. It was published at 72 FR unsettled area of law and a particular 2009, in Shipbuilders Council of 64109. The notice requested comments issue had arisen with regard to America v. United States Dept. of as to how MARAD should administer MARAD’s method of determination in a Homeland Security, 673 F.Supp.2d 438 the programs assigned to it and sought foreign rebuild context. That matter was (E.D.Va. 2009). answers to four questions. MARAD resolved and in December 2009, the Chapter 535 of title 46, United States received 21 comments from 10 Coast Guard’s method of carrying out Code, established the Capital commenters. Commenters included U.S. rebuilding determinations was affirmed Construction Fund (CCF) program, shippers, individuals, and shipping by the United States Court of Appeals whereby a U.S. citizen owner of an associations. A discussion of the for the Fourth Circuit. Likewise, eligible vessel may defer Federal income comments follows. MARAD’s approach to such taxes on income derived from the determinations had been affirmed by the operation of an eligible vessel to the III. Discussion of Comments United States Court of Appeals for the extent that income is deposited into a The notice requested comments on Second Circuit. Even though the fund to be used solely for the four topics pertaining to foreign rebuild standards are different as applied acquisition, construction or and reconstruction standards as applied regarding the cargo preference program, reconstruction of qualified vessels. The to the CCF program and cargo the two approaches would only rarely statutory definitions of both eligible and preference. The questions included: produce a different result. Furthermore, qualified vessels, as pertaining to the (1) What substantive standards should because they are generally applied in CCF program, require such vessels, if MARAD apply to determine whether a different circumstances, they even more reconstructed, to be reconstructed in the CCF vessel has been reconstructed or a rarely produce inconsistent results United States. MARAD administers the cargo preference vessel has been rebuilt; regarding the same vessel. MARAD has CCF program (except for the CCF (2) what procedures should the MARAD been requested to make a determination applicable to fishery vessels and adopt to investigate whether a CCF only twice in the last fifteen years. administered by the National Oceanic vessel has been reconstructed or a cargo Therefore, a new rule is not required. and Atmospheric Administration) under preference vessel has been rebuilt; (3) DATES: The notice published at 72 FR regulations located at 46 CFR part 390. what role, if any, should unrelated third 64109 (November 14, 2007) is To evaluate reconstruction under the parties, such as competitors or withdrawn and terminated on CCF program, MARAD follows shipyards, play in developing a record November 4, 2010. determinations made by the Coast of decision on whether a CCF vessel has Docket: For access to the docket to Guard for Jones Act purposes. Under the been reconstructed or a cargo preference read background documents, please go CCF, because most vessels are Jones Act vessel has been rebuilt; and (4) what to http://www.regulations.gov. vessels and must meet Coast Guard public disclosure criteria should apply

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

to the record of decision on whether a it pertains to programs administered by Valley Railroad, Inc.; Louisiana CCF vessel has been reconstructed or a MARAD, in the future. Southern Railroad, Inc.; Arkansas cargo preference vessel has been rebuilt. Southern Railroad, Inc.; Alabama IV. Reason for Withdrawal In response to question one as to which Southern Railroad, Inc.; Vicksburg substantive standards MARAD should MARAD’s procedures on foreign Southern Railroad, Inc.; Austin Western apply to determine whether a CCF rebuilding for cargo preference purposes Railroad, Inc.; Baton Rouge Southern vessel has been reconstructed or a cargo were affirmed in Aquarius Marine Co. in Railroad, LLC (BRSR); Pacific Sun preference vessel has been rebuilt, the 1995 and reaffirmed in the Barge Railroad, LLC (PSRR); Grand Elk majority of commenters responded that Connor (2005) and Matson (2008) Railroad; Alabama Warrior Railway, there were already established decisions. This is a settled area of law. LLC (AWR); and Boise Valley Railroad, precedents in the Aquarius Marine Co. Also, MARAD received no objections to Inc. case and MARAD’s determinations in its practice that CCF reconstruction Under the proposed transaction, all Golden Monarch and Barge Connor; two follow Coast Guard guidance. MARAD but 4 of the Watco Railroads, SKO, others suggested that MARAD adopt the and the Coast Guard have different PSRR, AWR, and BRSR, will reorganize. Coast Guard’s standard for rebuild/ standards for rebuilding as discussed Holdings, which is a new Kansas reconstruction determinations. MARAD herein, but those standards have a very noncarrier holding company, will will maintain the status quo by adhering slight chance of overlapping or indirectly control all of the Watco to the established precedents. As to producing conflicting results. This is so Railroads. There are several steps to the question number two regarding what because the differing standards address proposed transaction. The existing procedures MARAD should adopt to diverse segments of the vessel market. stockholders of Watco will form inquire into whether a CCF vessel has Thus, there is no need for a new rule or Holdings, and Holdings will become the been reconstructed or a cargo preference to amend the cargo preference parent to Watco and thus will indirectly vessel has been rebuilt, a majority of the regulations or the CCF regulations with control the 22 Watco Railroads. In commenters felt participants in the CCF respect to rebuild or reconstruction addition, Watco will convert from a and cargo preference programs should determination standards. Kansas corporation to a Delaware seek advisory opinions from MARAD By Order of the Maritime Administrator. limited liability company and will prior to having work performed outside Dated: October 25, 2010. continue to control Transportation Services. In turn, Transportation the United States. One commenter Christine Gurland, suggested that MARAD enter into a Services will convert from a Kansas Secretary, Maritime Administration. Memorandum of Understanding with corporation to a Kansas limited liability the Coast Guard to be notified of all [FR Doc. 2010–27812 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] company and will continue to directly applications for rebuild determinations BILLING CODE 4910–81–P control 21 of the Watco Railroads: all and then make an independent but BRSR.1 Further, each of the Watco determination based upon the Railroads except SKO, PSRR, AWR, and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION application submitted to the Coast BRSR will be converted to either a Guard. MARAD noted in its decision in Surface Transportation Board limited liability company or a C Barge Connor that it would have corporation, depending on applicable provided an advisory decision to Moby [Docket No. FD 35439] State law. Each of the Watco Railroads Marine Corporation if asked prior to will remain incorporated in the same work having been performed in Watco Holdings, Inc., Watco state of its incorporation today. Colombia. MARAD is willing to provide Companies, Inc., and Watco The transaction is scheduled to be advisory opinions and will do so when Transportation Services, Inc.— consummated on or after November 18, asked. Such advisory opinions will be Corporate Family Transaction 2010, the effective date of the exemption published in the Federal Register. Exemption (30 days after the notice was filed). The As to the third question posed in the Watco Holdings, Inc. (Holdings), purpose of this transaction is to notice regarding what role, if any, that Watco Companies, Inc. (Watco), Watco facilitate Watco’s ability to obtain unrelated third parties should play in Transportation Services, Inc. financing. This is a transaction within a developing a record of decision on (Transportation Services), and the rail corporate family of the type specifically whether a CCF vessel has been carrier subsidiaries have jointly filed a exempted from prior review and reconstructed or a cargo preference verified notice of exemption under 49 approval under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3). vessel has been rebuilt, all commenters CFR 1180.2(d)(3) for a corporate family The parties state that the transaction felt third parties should play a transaction. Watco, a noncarrier, is a will not result in adverse changes in substantial role in developing the Kansas corporation that controls service levels, significant operational record. Transportation Services, also a changes, or any change in the A variety of comments were received noncarrier and a Kansas corporation. competitive balance with carriers in response to question four regarding Watco indirectly controls 22 Class III outside the Watco corporate family. public disclosure of records of decision. railroads (the Watco Railroads): South Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board There was general consensus that Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad may not use its exemption authority to MARAD should publish its final rulings Company (SKO); Palouse River & Coulee relieve a rail carrier of its statutory in the Federal Register. MARAD City Railroad, Inc.; Timber Rock obligation to protect the interests of its currently does not publish its rulings in Railroad, Inc.; Stillwater Central employees. Section 11326(c), however, the Federal Register. Instead, previous Railroad, Inc.; Eastern Idaho Railroad, does not provide for labor protection for final opinions and orders may be found Inc; Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc.; transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 and on MARAD’s Web site at http:// Pennsylvania Southwestern Railroad, 11325 that involve only Class III rail www.marad.dot.gov in its Electronic Inc.; Great Northwest Railroad, Inc.; Reading Room. However, MARAD will Kaw River Railroad, Inc.; Mission 1 The parties state that BRSR will continue to be publish final decisions and orders Mountain Railroad, Inc; Mississippi controlled by separate, wholly owned subsidiaries relating to the rebuilding of vessels, as Southern Railroad, Inc.; Yellowstone of Watco.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68021

carriers. Accordingly the Board may not DATES: Written comments will be ‘‘[a]ddress[ ] actions at a broad level, impose labor protective conditions here accepted on or before December 6, 2010. such as a program concept for an entire because all of the carriers involved are Copies of both the Tier-1 EA and draft corridor.’’ (Interim Guidance Section Class III rail carriers. FONSI are available on FRA’s Web site 2.2). If the notice contains false or at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/ In order to comply with the misleading information, the exemption 249.shtml and ODOT’s Web site at requirements of the Interim Guidance, is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the http://www.3CisMe.Ohio.gov. ODOT and ORDC prepared a Tier-1 or exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) ADDRESSES: Please submit written ‘‘service’’ NEPA document that included may be filed at any time. The filing of comments on the draft FONSI to Ms. the analysis of four route alternatives a petition to revoke will not Judi Craig Parsons Brinckerhoff, 312 including the ‘‘No Build’’ and twelve automatically stay the transaction. Elm Street, Suite 2500, Cincinnati, Ohio communities with 32 possible station Petitions for stay must be filed no later 45202. sites. The No Build Alternative analyzes than November 10, 2010 (at least 7 days FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For what would happen if there are no before the exemption becomes further information regarding the draft improvements on the OH 3C Corridor. effective). FONSI please contact Wendy The alternatives analyses analyze the An original and 10 copies of all Messenger, Environmental Protection effect on the human and natural pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD Specialist, Federal Railroad environments of the improvements that 35439, must be filed with the Surface Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., involve the four route alternatives, Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., SE., Stop 20, Washington DC 20590, twelve communities and 32 possible Washington, DC 20423–0001. In [email protected]. station sites that meet the goals of the addition, one copy of each pleading OH 3C Quick Start Project. The Tier-1 must be served on Karl Morell, Ball SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EA was completed in September, 2009 Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite purpose of the 3C ‘‘Quick Start’’ and was made available for comment 225, Washington, DC 20005. Passenger Rail Project is to reestablish between September 25, 2009 and Board decisions and notices are intercity conventional speed passenger October 6, 2009 at http:// available on our Web site at http:// rail service (up to 79 miles per hour) in www.3CisMe.Ohio.gov. Approximately www.stb.dot.gov. the 3C Corridor and provide a reliable 7,500 comments were received. train system that links Ohio’s three Decided: November 1, 2010. At the Tier-1 level of review, the FRA largest cities (Cleveland, Columbus and finds that the 3C Quick Start Passenger By the Board. Cincinnati.) The service will deliver Rail Project as presented and evaluated Rachel D. Campbell, predictable and consistent travel times. in the July 2010 Tier-1 EA, satisfies the Director, Office of Proceedings. It is intended to provide travel options requirements of FRA’s ‘‘Procedures for Andrea Pope-Matheson, and develop the passenger rail market Considering Environmental Impacts’’ Clearance Clerk. for possible further development. To and will not have a significant impact [FR Doc. 2010–27938 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] achieve these goals ORDC applied for on the quality of the human or natural BILLING CODE 4915–01–P Federal funding through the High Speed environment, following the Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR implementation of the mitigation Program) administered by the FRA and measures detailed in the FONSI and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION funded by the American Recovery and those which will be developed during Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). the site-specific environmental Federal Railroad Administration ORDC’s application under the Recovery documentation process for specific Act identified the transportation Draft Finding of No Significant Impact improvements. benefits of the project as providing Therefore, FRA has drafted a FONSI on the Tier 1 Ohio 3C Quick Start citizens with additional mobility for the proposed improvements. This Passenger Rail Tier-1 Environmental options and a new transportation choice FONSI based on the Tier-1 EA has been Assessment for travelers with associated benefits. prepared to comply with NEPA and the AGENCY: Federal Railroad The FRA intends to provide funding FRA’s Environmental Procedures. FRA Administration (FRA), United States under the HSIPR Program for this has concluded that the award of Federal Department of Transportation (DOT). project. funds to reestablish the intercity ACTION: Notice of availability; request In June 2009, the FRA released the passenger rail service on the 3C corridor for comments on draft Finding of No HSIPR Program Guidance (Interim as described in the EA, constitutes a Significant Impact. Guidance) that described the eligibility major Federal action within the requirements and procedures for meaning of Section 102(c) of NEPA (42 SUMMARY: In accordance with the obtaining funding under the HSIPR U.S.C. 4332). Prior to release of National Environmental Policy Act of Program. (74 FR 29900 (June 23, 2009)). construction funding for this project, 1969 (NEPA) and the FRA’s Procedures The Interim Guidance split the funding ODOT and ORDC will successfully for Considering Environmental Impacts opportunities into four separate tracks. complete applicable mitigation (FRA Environmental Procedures) (64 FR The 3C Quick Start Project was measures detailed in the draft FONSI 28545, May 26, 1999), the FRA and the submitted by ODOT for consideration and complete appropriate project-level Ohio Department of Transportation for Track 2 funding. The Interim NEPA evaluations, documentation and (ODOT) and the Ohio Rail Development Guidance required Track 2 applicants to decision documents and the mitigation Commission (ORDC) prepared a Tier-1 submit, with their application, a measures developed thereunder. Environmental Assessment (Tier-1 EA) ‘‘corridor-wide ‘service’ NEPA study, FRA Environmental Procedures that evaluates the impacts of the 3C such as a programmatic or Tier I EIS.’’ require that a FONSI be made available Quick Start Passenger Rail Project. (Interim Guidance Section 1.6.2). The to the public for not less than 30 days Based on the Tier-1 EA, the FRA has Interim Guidance went on to explain when the ‘‘nature of the proposed action prepared a draft finding of no significant that Tier 1 Environmental Impact is one without precedent.’’ Because the impact (draft FONSI) and is inviting the Statements and some Environmental nature of this project is unprecedented public to comment on the draft. Assessments are programmatic and and this Tier-1 Level FONSI is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

contemplated to be one of the first that actions by issuing licenses, permits, and and Construction. The regulations FRA will issue, this notice invites the approvals for the following highway implementing Executive Order 12372 public to comment on the draft FONSI. project in the State of Illinois: extension regarding intergovernmental consultation on of Red Gate Road and construction of a Federal programs and activities apply to this Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, program.) 2010. two-lane bridge and bicycle/pedestrian Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). Mark E. Yachmetz, trail across the Fox River from Illinois Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy Route 31 (IL 31) to Illinois Route 25 (IL Issued on: October 29, 2010. and Development. 25); a distance of 0.5 mile. The actions Norman R. Stoner, [FR Doc. 2010–27872 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] by the Federal agencies, and the laws Division Administrator, Springfield, Illinois. under which such actions were taken, BILLING CODE 4910–06–P are described in the Environmental [FR Doc. 2010–27932 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Assessment (EA) for the project BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION approved on November 4, 2009; the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation approved DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration on October 5, 2010; the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions October 14, 2010; and in other on Proposed Highway in Illinois documents in the FHWA administrative Air Traffic Procedures Advisory record. The EA, the Final Section 4(f) AGENCY: Federal Highway Committee Administration (FHWA), DOT. Evaluation, FONSI, and other documents in the FHWA administrative AGENCY: Federal Aviation ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims record file are available by contacting Administration (FAA), DOT. for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA the FHWA or the Illinois Department of SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice and other Federal Agencies. Transportation at the addresses to advise the public that a new charter SUMMARY: This notice announces actions provided above. The EA, Final Section has been issued for the Federal Aviation taken by the FHWA and other Federal 4(f) Evaluation and FONSI can be Administration Air Traffic Procedures agencies that are final within the viewed and downloaded from the Advisory Committee (ATPAC). The meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The project Web site at http:// duties of this advisory committee actions relate to a proposed highway www.redgatebridge.org. include: project, Red Gate Road Extension and This notice applies to all Federal 1. To make recommendations for Bridge Crossing over the Fox River agency decisions as of the issuance date standardizing, clarifying, and upgrading between Illinois Route 31 and Illinois of this notice and all laws under which terminology and procedures, as a result Route 25 in Kane County, Illinois. Those such actions were taken, including but of its review of present ATC procedures actions grant licenses, permits, and not limited to: and practices. approvals for the project. 1. General: National Environmental 2. To provide advice and make recommendations concerning: DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321– 4351] Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 a. New or significantly revised ATC advising the public of final agency procedural concepts. actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401– b. The adequacy of charts, diagrams, claim seeking judicial review of the and illustrations used to convey Federal agency actions on the highway 7671(q)]. 3. Land: Section 4(f) of the information concerning the application project will be barred unless the claim Department of Transportation Act of of ATC procedures and their relevance is filed on or before May 3, 2011. If the 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138]. to current, revised, or proposed ATC Federal law that authorizes judicial 4. Social and Economic: Civil Rights procedures and concepts. review of a claim provides a time period Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)– c. Aviation regulations that have an of less than 180 days for filing such 2000(d)(1)]. impact on present, new, or significantly claim, then that shorter time period still 5. Historic and Cultural Resources: revised ATC procedures and concepts. applies. Section 106 of the National Historic 3. To act solely in an advisory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Preservation Act of 1966, as amended capacity to accomplish its duties. Norman R. Stoner, P.E., Division [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archaeological DATES: Effective October 29, 2010. Administrator, Federal Highway and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration, 3250 Executive Park [16 U.S.C. 469–469(c)]. Elizabeth Ray, ATPAC Executive Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703, 6. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act Director, 800 Independence Avenue, Phone: (217) 492–4600, E-mail address: [16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone [email protected]. The FHWA 1536]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 (202) 267–9205. Illinois Division Office’s normal U.S.C. 703–712]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: business hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. 7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Pursuant You may also contact Ms. Diane Clean Water Act (Section 401 and 404) to Section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory O’Keefe, P.E., Illinois Department of [33 U.S.C. 1251–1377]; Wild and Scenic Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463; 5 U.S.C. Transportation, Deputy Director of Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271–1287]. App. 2), notice is hereby given of the Highways, Region One Engineer, 201 8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 filing of the ATPAC Charter, Effective West Center Court, Schaumburg, Illinois Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 October 29, 2010. 60196, Phone: (847) 705–4000. The Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898 Issued in Washington, DC, on October 29, Illinois Department of Transportation Federal Actions to Address 2010. Region One’s normal business hours are Environmental Justice in Minority Elizabeth Ray, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Populations and Low Income Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Populations. Advisory Committee. hereby given that the FHWA and other (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance [FR Doc. 2010–27832 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Federal agencies have taken final agency Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68023

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION alternating 1-year terms as chairperson (contact information is written above in of the advisory group. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Federal Aviation Administration The advisory group provides ‘‘advice, Requests to serve on the ARC must be information, and recommendations to made to Mr. Brayer in writing and Membership Availability in the National the Administrator and the Director— postmarked or e-mailed on or before Parks Overflights Advisory Group (1) On the implementation of this title December 20, 2010. The request should Aviation Rulemaking Committee To [the Act] and the amendments made by indicate whether or not you are a Represent Environmental Concerns this title; member of an association or group (2) On commonly accepted quiet representing environmental concerns, or ACTION: Notice. aircraft technology for use in have another affiliation with issues relating to aircraft flights over national SUMMARY: The National Park Service commercial air tour operations over a parks. The request should also state (NPS) and the Federal Aviation national park or Tribal lands, which what expertise you would bring to the Administration (FAA), as required by will receive preferential treatment in a NPOAG ARC as related to the vacancy the National Parks Air Tour given air tour management plan; you are seeking to fill (e.g., Management Act of 2000, established (3) On other measures that might be environmental concerns). The term of the National Parks Overflights Advisory taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and service for NPOAG ARC members is 3 Group (NPOAG) in March 2001. The years. NPOAG was formed to provide (4) On safety, environmental, and continuing advice and counsel with other issues related to commercial air Issued in Hawthorne, CA, on October 27, respect to commercial air tour tour operations over a national park or 2010. operations over and near national parks. tribal lands.’’ Barry Brayer, This notice informs the public of two Members of the advisory group may NPOAG Chairman, Manager, Special vacancies (due to completion of be allowed certain travel expenses as Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region. membership on May 30, 2011) on the authorized by section 5703 of Title 5, [FR Doc. 2010–27833 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] NPOAG (now the NPOAG Aviation United States Code, for intermittent BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Rulemaking Committee (ARC) for a Government service. member representing environmental By FAA Order No. 1110–138, signed concerns and invites interested persons by the FAA Administrator on October DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10, 2003, the NPOAG became an to apply to fill the vacancy. Maritime Administration DATES: Persons interested in serving on Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). the NPOAG ARC should contact Mr. FAA Order No. 1110–138, was amended [Docket No. MARAD–2010 0095] Barry Brayer at the mailing or e-mail and became effective as FAA Order No. 1110–138A, on January 20, 2006. Requested Administrative Waiver of address below in writing on or before the Coastwise Trade Laws December 20, 2010. The current NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: Maritime Administration, aviation, three members representing Department of Transportation. Barry Brayer, AWP–1SP, Special the commercial air tour industry, four Programs Staff, Federal Aviation ACTION: Invitation for public comments members representing environmental on a requested administrative waiver of Administration, Western-Pacific Region concerns, and two members Headquarters, P.O. Box 92007, Los the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel representing Native American Tribal BARCODE. Angeles, CA 90009–2007, telephone: concerns. Current members of the (310) 725–3800, e-mail: NPOAG ARC are: Heidi Williams, SUMMARY: As authorized by 46 U.S.C. [email protected], or Karen Trevino, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, National Park Service, Natural Sounds Alan Stephen, fixed-winged air tour as represented by the Maritime Program, 1201 Oakridge Dr., Suite 100, operator representative; Elling Administration (MARAD), is authorized Fort Collins, CO 80525, telephone (970) Halvorson, Papillon Airways, Inc.; to grant waivers of the U.S.-build 225–3563, e-mail: _ Matthew Zuccaro, Helicopter requirement of the coastwise laws under Karen [email protected]. Association International; Chip certain circumstances. A request for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dennerlein, Siskiyou Project; Gregory such a waiver has been received by Miller, American Hiking Society; MARAD. The vessel, and a brief Background Kristen Brengel, National Parks description of the proposed service, is The National Parks Air Tour Conservation Association; Bryan listed below. The complete application Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was Faehner, National Parks Conservation is given in DOT docket MARAD–2010– enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law Association; Rory Majenty, Hualapai 0095 at http://www.regulations.gov. 106–181. The Act required the Nation; and Ray Russell, Navajo Parks Interested parties may comment on the establishment of the advisory group and Recreation. Members with expiring effect this action may have on U.S. within 1 year after its enactment. The terms are Kristen Brengel and Bryan vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. advisory group was established in Faehner from the National Parks that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD March 2001, and is comprised of a Conservation Association representing determines, in accordance with 46 balanced group of representatives of environmental concerns. U.S.C. 12121 and MARAD’s regulations general aviation, commercial air tour at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April operations, environmental concerns, Public Participation in the NPOAG 30, 2003), that the issuance of the and Native American Tribes. The ARC waiver will have an unduly adverse Administrator of the FAA and the In order to retain balance within the effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a Director of NPS (or their designees) NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS invite business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in serve as ex officio members of the persons interested in serving on the that business, a waiver will not be group. Representatives of the ARC to represent environmental granted. Comments should refer to the Administrator and Director serve concerns, to contact Mr. Barry Brayer docket number of this notice and the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

vessel name in order for MARAD to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of this document and all documents properly consider the comments. entered into this docket is available on Comments should also state the Maritime Administration the World Wide Web at http:// www.regulations.gov. commenter’s interest in the waiver [Docket No. MARAD–2010–0096] application, and address the waiver FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s Requested Administrative Waiver of Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of regulations at 46 CFR part 388. the Coastwise Trade Laws Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey DATES: Submit comments on or before AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Avenue, SE., Room W21–203, December 6, 2010. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC 20590. Telephone ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to ACTION: Invitation for public comments 202–366–5979. docket number MARAD–2010–0095. on a requested administrative waiver of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As Written comments may be submitted by the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel described by the applicant the intended hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, FISHASAURUS. service of the vessel FISHASAURUS is: Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: U.S. Department of Transportation, SUMMARY: As authorized by 46 U.S.C. ‘‘Sport fishing charters, 6 passengers or Docket Operations, M–30, West 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, less.’’ as represented by the Maritime ‘‘ 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Geographic Region: Michigan, Ohio, Administration (MARAD), is authorized Indiana.’’ Washington, DC 20590. You may also to grant waivers of the U.S.-build Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search send comments electronically via the requirement of the coastwise laws under the electronic form of all comments Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. certain circumstances. A request for received into any of our dockets by the All comments will become part of this such a waiver has been received by name of the individual submitting the docket and will be available for MARAD. The vessel, and a brief comment (or signing the comment, if inspection and copying at the above description of the proposed service, is submitted on behalf of an association, address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., listed below. The complete application business, labor union, etc.). You may E.T., Monday through Friday, except is given in DOT docket MARAD–2010– review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Federal holidays. An electronic version 0096 at http://www.regulations.gov. Statement in the Federal Register of this document and all documents Interested parties may comment on the published on April 11, 2000 (Volume entered into this docket is available on effect this action may have on U.S. 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. the World Wide Web at http:// By Order of the Maritime Administrator. www.regulations.gov. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD Dated: October 21, 2010. determines, in accordance with 46 Christine Gurland, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S.C. 12121 and MARAD’s regulations Secretary, Maritime Administration. Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April [FR Doc. 2010–27822 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Transportation, Maritime 30, 2003), that the issuance of the BILLING CODE 4910–81–P Administration, 1200 New Jersey waiver will have an unduly adverse Avenue, SE., Room W21–203, effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a Washington, DC 20590. Telephone business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 202–366–5979. that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the Federal Aviation Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As docket number of this notice and the described by the applicant the intended vessel name in order for MARAD to Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in service of the vessel BARCODE is: properly consider the comments. Use of Aeronautical Property at Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: Comments should also state the Louisville International Airport, ‘‘coastwise. Limited charter 6 or fewer commenter’s interest in the waiver Louisville, KY application, and address the waiver passengers.’’ AGENCY: Federal Aviation criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s Administration (FAA), DOT. Geographic Region: ‘‘Florida.’’ regulations at 46 CFR part 388. ACTION: Request for public comment. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search DATES: Submit comments on or before the electronic form of all comments December 6, 2010. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation received into any of our dockets by the ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Administration is requesting public name of the individual submitting the docket number MARAD–2010–0096. comment on request by the Louisville comment (or signing the comment, if Written comments may be submitted by Regional Airport Authority to change a submitted on behalf of an association, hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, portion of airport property from business, labor union, etc.). You may U.S. Department of Transportation, aeronautical to non-aeronautical use at review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Docket Operations, M–30, West the Louisville International Airport, Statement in the Federal Register Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Louisville, Kentucky. The request published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., consists approximately of 1.773 acres of 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). Washington, DC 20590. You may also fee simple release. This action is taken under the provisions of Section 125 of By Order of the Maritime Administrator. send comments electronically via the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Dated: October 21, 2010. All comments will become part of this Investment Reform Act for the 21st Christine Gurland, docket and will be available for Century (AIR 21). Secretary, Maritime Administration. inspection and copying at the above DATES: Comments must be received on [FR Doc. 2010–27810 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., or before December 6, 2010. BILLING CODE 4910–81–P E.T., Monday through Friday, except ADDRESSES: Documents are available for Federal holidays. An electronic version review at the Louisville International

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68025

Airport, 600 Terminal Drive, Louisville, Issued in Memphis, TN, on October 28, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You KY 40209 and the FAA Memphis 2010. can request additional information or a Airports District Office, 2862 Business Tommy L. Dupree, copy of the collection from Mary H. Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN Acting Manager, Memphis Airports District Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 38118. Written comments on the Office, Southern Region. 874–5090, Legislative and Regulatory Sponsor’s request must be delivered or [FR Doc. 2010–27893 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Activities Division, Office of the mailed to: Mr. Phillip J. Braden, BILLING CODE P Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Manager, Memphis Airports District Street, NW., Washington, DC 20219. Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC Building G, Memphis, TN 38118. is proposing to extend OMB approval of DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY In addition, a copy of any comments the following information collection: submitted to the FAA must be mailed or Office of the Comptroller of the Title: Securities Offering Disclosure delivered to Mr. Charles T. Millers, Currency Rules. Executive Director, Louisville Regional OMB Control No.: 1557–0120. Airport Authority, P.O. Box 9129, Agency Information Collection Affected Public: Business or other for- Louisville, KY 40209. Activities: Submission for OMB profit. Type of Review: Regular. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Review; Comment Request Mr. Abstract: This information collection Tommy L. Dupree, Team Lead/Civil AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the covers an existing regulation and Engineer, Federal Aviation involves no change to the regulation or Administration, Memphis Airports Currency (OCC), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. to the information collection. The OCC District Office, 2862 Business Park requests only that OMB extend its Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118. SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its approval of the information collection. The application may be reviewed in continuing effort to reduce paperwork The requirements in 12 CFR part 16 person at this same location, by and respondent burden, invites the enable the OCC to perform its appointment. general public and other Federal responsibilities relating to offerings of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA agencies to comment on a continuing securities by national banks by proposes to rule and invites public information collection, as required by providing the investing public with comment on the request to release the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. facts about the condition of the bank, property at the Louisville International An agency may not conduct or sponsor, the reasons for raising new capital, and Airport, Louisville, KY. Under the and a respondent is not required to the terms of the offering. Part 16 provisions of AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. respond to, an information collection generally requires national banks to 47107(h)(2)). unless it displays a currently valid conform to Securities and Exchange On October 28, 2010, the FAA Office of Management and Budget Commission Rules. determined that the request to release (OMB) control number. The OCC is The collections of information in part property at Louisville International soliciting comment concerning an 16 are as follows: Form for Registration. A national bank Airport meets the procedural information collection titled, ‘‘Securities offering or selling its own securities to requirements of the Federal Aviation Offering Disclosure Rules.’’ The OCC is the public is required to make such offer Administration. The FAA may approve also giving notice that it has sent the or sale through the use of a prospectus the request, in whole or in part, no later collection to OMB for review. that has been filed with the OCC as part than December 6, 2010. DATES: You should submit written of a registration statement. The following is a brief overview of comments by December 6, 2010. Abbreviated Form for Registration. A the request: ADDRESSES: Communications Division, national bank that is a subsidiary of a The Louisville Regional Airport Office of the Comptroller of the company that has securities registered Authority is proposing the release of Currency, Mail Stop 2–3, Attention under the Securities Exchange Act of approximately 1.773 acres along various 1557–0120, 250 E Street, SW., 1934 (Exchange Act) may offer and sell locations on the western boundary of Washington, DC 20219. In addition, securities (nonconvertible debt) only to Louisville International Airport that are comments may be sent by fax to (202) accredited investors upon meeting adjacent to Crittenden Drive. This 874–5274, or by electronic mail to conditions in 12 CFR 16.6 and by release is for compliance by the [email protected]. You may providing an abbreviated information authority with prior commitments personally inspect and photocopy statement in a form for registration. between the Louisville Regional Airport comments at the OCC, 250 E Street, Small Issues. A national bank may Authority and The Commonwealth of SW., Washington, DC 20219. For offer and sell securities publicly in a Kentucky for the previous relocation of security reasons, the OCC requires that limited dollar amount by using an Crittenden Drive associated with the visitors make an appointment to inspect Offering Statement meeting the authority’s Runway 17R–35L comments. You may do so by calling requirements of SEC’s Regulation A (17 construction at Louisville International (202) 874–4700. Upon arrival, visitors CFR 230.251 et seq.). Airport. will be required to present valid Regulation D. A national bank may Any person may inspect, by government-issued photo identification offer or sell its own securities in a appointment, the request in person at and to submit to security screening in private placement to accredited or the FAA office listed above under FOR order to inspect and photocopy sophisticated investors in compliance FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. comments. with 12 CFR 16.7. In addition, any person may, upon Additionally, please send a copy of Form 144. A national bank must file appointment and request, inspect the your comments to OCC Desk Officer, Form 144, which contains information request, notice and other documents 1557–0120, by mail to U.S. Office of on resales of securities originally sold germane to the request in person at the Management and Budget, 725 17th through the private placement Tennessee Department of Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or exemption, only in certain Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. by fax to (202) 395–6974. circumstances.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

These information collection transactions involving registered DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY requirements ensure bank compliance securities. with applicable Federal law, promote Community Development Financial DATES: Written comments should be bank safety and soundness, provide Institutions Fund received on or before January 3, 2011, to protections for banks, and further public be assured of consideration. policy interests. Native American CDFI Assistance Estimated Number of Respondents: ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments (NACA) Program to Bureau of the Public Debt, Robert L. 48. Funding Opportunity Title: Notice of Schumacher, 200 Third Street, A4–A, Estimated Number of Responses: 48. Funds Availability (NOFA) inviting Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328, or Estimated Total Annual Burden: 450 applications for the FY 2011 Funding [email protected]. hours. Round of the Native American CDFI The information collection was issued FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistance (NACA) Program. for 60 days of comment on August 17, Requests for additional information or Announcement Type: Announcement 2010. 75 FR 50800. No comments were copies of the form and instructions of funding opportunity. received. Comments continue to be should be directed to Robert L. Catalog of Federal Domestic invited on: Schumacher, Bureau of the Public Debt, Assistance (CFDA) Number: 21.020. (a) Whether the collection of 200 Third Street, A4–A, Parkersburg, DATES: Applications for Financial information is necessary for the proper WV 26106–1328, (304) 480–8150. Assistance (FA) and/or Technical performance of the functions of the Assistance (TA) awards through the FY OCC, including whether the information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2011 Funding Round of the NACA has practical utility; Title: Resolution For Transactions Program must be received by 11:59 p.m., (b) The accuracy of the OCC’s Involving Registered Securities. Eastern Time (ET), December 22, 2010. estimate of the information collection OMB Number: 1535–0117. Executive Summary: Subject to burden; Form Number: PD F 1010. funding availability, this NOFA is (c) Ways to enhance the quality, Abstract: The information is issued in connection with the FY 2011 utility, and clarity of the information to requested to establish the official’s Funding Round. The NACA Program is be collected; authority to act on behalf of the administered by the Community (d) Ways to minimize the burden of organization. Development Financial Institutions the collection on respondents, including Current Actions: None. (CDFI) Fund. through the use of automated collection Type of Review: Extension. techniques or other forms of information Affected Public: Business or other for I. Funding Opportunity Description technology; and profit. A. Through the NACA Program, the (e) Estimates of capital or start-up Estimated Number of Respondents: CDFI Fund provides: (i) FA awards to costs and costs of operation, 1,380. CDFIs that direct at least 50 percent of maintenance, and purchase of services their activities toward serving Native to provide information. Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes. American, Alaska Native, and/or Native Dated: October 29, 2010. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hawaiians (Native CDFIs). Native CDFIs Michele Meyer, Hours: 230. must have Comprehensive Business Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Request for Comments: Comments Plans for creating demonstrable Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller submitted in response to this notice will community development impact of the Currency. be summarized and/or included in the through the deployment of credit, [FR Doc. 2010–27901 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] request for OMB approval. All capital, and financial services within BILLING CODE 4810–33–P comments will become a matter of their respective Target Markets or for public record. Comments are invited on: the expansion into new Investment (a) Whether the collection of Areas, Low-Income Targeted DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY information is necessary for the proper Populations, or Other Targeted Populations; and (ii) TA grants to Native Bureau of the Public Debt performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the CDFIs, entities proposing to become Native CDFIs, and to Native Proposed Collection: Comment information shall have practical utility; organizations, Tribes, and Tribal Request (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of organizations (Sponsoring Entities) that ACTION: Notice and request for information; (c) ways to enhance the propose to create Native CDFIs, in order comments. quality, utility, and clarity of the to build their capacity to meet the information to be collected; (d) ways to community development and capital SUMMARY: The Department of the minimize the burden of the collection of access needs of their existing or Treasury, as part of its continuing effort information on respondents, including proposed Target Markets and/or to to reduce paperwork and respondent through the use of automated collection become certified Native CDFIs. burden, invites the general public and techniques or other forms of information B. The regulations governing the CDFI other Federal agencies to take this technology; and (e) estimates of capital Program are found at 12 CFR part 1805 opportunity to comment on proposed or start-up costs and costs of operation, (the Regulations) and provide guidance and/or continuing information maintenance, and purchase of services on evaluation criteria and other collections, as required by the to provide information. requirements of the NACA Program. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, CDFI Fund encourages Applicants to Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. Dated: October 28, 2010. review the Regulations. Detailed 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of Robert L. Schumacher, application content requirements are the Public Debt within the Department Manager, Information Management Branch. found in the applicable funding of the Treasury is soliciting comments [FR Doc. 2010–27863 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] application and related guidance concerning the resolution for BILLING CODE 4810–39–P materials. Each capitalized term in this

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68027

NOFA is more fully defined in the the provision of loan guarantees, in the Applicant’s award request as stated in Regulations, the application, or the Applicant’s Target Market, or for related its application. The CDFI Fund reserves guidance materials. purposes that the CDFI Fund deems the right, in its sole discretion, to C. The CDFI Fund reserves the right appropriate (including administrative provide a FA award to an Applicant on to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or funds used to carry out Financial the condition that the Applicant agrees none of the applications submitted in Products). Financial Services means to use a TA grant for specified capacity- response to this NOFA. The CDFI Fund checking and savings accounts, certified building purposes, even if the Applicant reserves the right to re-allocate funds checks, automated teller machine has not requested a TA grant. FA awards from the amount that is anticipated to services, deposit taking, remittances, must be used to support the Applicant’s be available under this NOFA to other safe deposit box services, and other activities; FA awards cannot be used to CDFI Fund programs, particularly if the similar services (including support the activities of, or otherwise be CDFI Fund determines that the number administrative funds used to carry out ‘‘passed through’’ to, third-party entities, of awards made under this NOFA is Financial Services). Development whether Affiliates, Subsidiaries, or fewer than projected. Services means activities that promote others, without the prior written II. Award Information community development and are permission of the CDFI Fund. integral to the Applicant’s provisions of 2. TA Grants: (a) The CDFI Fund A. Funding Availability: Through this Financial Products and Financial provides TA awards in the form of NOFA, and subject to funding Services (including administrative grants. The CDFI Fund reserves the availability, the CDFI Fund expects that funds used to carry out Development right, in its sole discretion, to provide a it may award approximately $12 million Services) including, for example, TA grant for uses and amounts other in appropriated funds in the FY 2011 financial or credit counseling, housing than that which the Applicant requests; Funding Round. The CDFI Fund and homeownership counseling (pre- however, the award amount will not reserves the right to award in excess of and post-), self-employment technical exceed the Applicant’s award request as $12 million in appropriated funds to assistance, entrepreneurship training, stated in its application and the Applicants in the FY 2011 Funding and financial management skill- applicable budget chart. Round, provided that the funds are building. Loan Loss Reserves means (b) TA grants may be used to address available and the CDFI Fund deems it funds that the Applicant will set aside a variety of needs including, but not appropriate. limited to, development of strategic B. Availability of Funds for the FY in the form of cash reserves, or through accounting-based accrual reserves, to planning documents (such as strategic 2011 Funding Round: Funds for the FY or capitalization plans), market analyses 2011 Funding Round have not yet been cover losses on loans, accounts, and notes receivable made in its Target or product feasibility analyses, appropriated. If funds are not operational policies and procedures, Market, or for related purposes that the appropriated for the FY 2011 Funding curricula for Development Services CDFI Fund deems appropriate Round, there will not be a FY 2011 (such as entrepreneurial training, home (including administrative funds used to Funding Round. Further, it is possible buyer education, financial education or carry out Loan Loss Reserves). Capital that if funds are appropriated for the FY training, or borrower credit repair Reserves means funds that the 2011 Funding Round, the amount of training), improvement of underwriting Applicant will set aside in the form of such funds may be greater than or less and portfolio management, development reserves to support the Applicant’s than the amounts set forth above. of outreach and training strategies to ability to leverage other capital, for such Further, if funds for the FY 2011 enhance product delivery, operating purposes as increasing its net assets or Funding Round are not appropriated, support to expand into a new eligible entities that are eligible to apply for serving the financing needs of its Target market, and tools that allow the CDFI Program funds and that might Market, or for related purposes that the Applicant to assess the impact of its otherwise have applied for NACA CDFI Fund deems appropriate activities in its community. Program funds are encouraged to apply (including administrative funds used to (c) Eligible TA grant uses include, but for funds through the FY 2011 Funding carry out Capital Reserves). Operations are not limited to: (i) Procuring Round of the CDFI Program. means funds that the Applicant will use professional services; (ii) acquiring/ C. Types of Awards: An Applicant to carry out its Comprehensive Business enhancing technology items, including may submit an application either for: (i) Plan, and/or for related purposes that computer hardware, software, and A FA award; (ii) a FA award and a TA the CDFI Fund deems appropriate, that Internet connectivity and related grant; or (iii) a TA-only grant. are not used to carry out or administer management information systems; (iii) 1. FA Awards: FA is intended to any of the foregoing eligible FA uses. FA acquiring training for staff, management, provide flexible financial support to awards are most commonly used for an and/or board members; and (iv) paying CDFIs so that they may achieve the Applicant’s Financial Products since FA recurring expenses, including staff strategies outlined in their funds can be used to support the salary and other key operating expenses, Comprehensive Business Plans. FA Applicant’s community development that will enhance the capacity of the awards can be used in the following five lending activities. Applicant to serve its Target Market categories: (i) Financial Products; (ii) The CDFI Fund may provide FA and/or to become certified as a Native Financial Services; (iii) Development awards in the form of equity CDFI or to create a Native CDFI. Services; (iv) Loan Loss Reserves, (v) investments (including, in the case of Applicants should see the NACA Capital Reserves, or other activities/uses certain Insured Credit Unions, application for additional details of each that support the activities in the secondary capital accounts), grants, eligible use of TA. Applicant’s Comprehensive Business loans, deposits, credit union shares, or D. Assistance Agreement: Each Plan; and/or (vi) Operations. For any combination thereof. The CDFI Awardee under this NOFA must execute purposes of this NOFA, Financial Fund reserves the right, in its sole an Assistance Agreement in order to Products means loans, grants, equity discretion, to provide a FA award in a receive a disbursement of award investments, and similar financing form and amount other than that which proceeds by the CDFI Fund. The activities, including the purchase of the Applicant requests; however, the Assistance Agreement contains the loans originated by certified CDFIs and award amount will not exceed the terms and conditions of the award. For

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

further information, see Section VI.A of requirements that each Applicant must 1. Applicant Categories: All this NOFA. meet in order to be eligible to apply for Applicants for FA, FA/TA and TA-only assistance under this NOFA. The III. Eligibility Information awards through this NOFA must meet following sets forth additional detail the criteria in Table 1—NACA A. Eligible Applicants: The and dates that relate to the submission Applicant Criteria. Regulations specify the eligibility of applications under this NOFA:

TABLE 1—NACA APPLICANT CRITERIA

Applicant type Criteria of applicant Maximum award

FA, FA/TA ...... A Certified/Certifiable Native CDFI that meets all other Up to and including $750,000 in FA funds, and up to eligibility requirements described in this NOFA. and including $150,000 if TA funds are being requested. TA-only ...... A Certified Native CDFI, a Certifiable Native CDFI, an Up to $150,000 for capacity-building activities. Emerging Native CDFI, or a Sponsoring Entity.

2. Native CDFI Certification the CDFI Fund, it is in the sole for FA awards. Each Sponsoring Entity Requirements: For purposes of this discretion of the CDFI Fund to terminate that is selected to receive a TA grant NOFA, eligible FA Applicants include the award commitment. While a will be required, pursuant to its Certified Native CDFIs and Certifiable Certifiable Native CDFI may be Assistance Agreement with the CDFI Native CDFIs; eligible TA Applicants conditionally selected for a FA award, Fund, to create a legal entity by a certain include Certified Native CDFIs, the CDFI Fund will not enter into an date that will, in turn, seek Native CDFI Certifiable Native CDFIs, Emerging Assistance Agreement or disburse award certification and to transfer remaining Native CDFIs, and Sponsoring Entities, funds unless and until the CDFI Fund award funds to that Native CDFI upon defined as follows: has officially certified the organization certification. (a) Certified Native CDFIs: For as a Native CDFI. 3. Limitation on Awards: An purposes of this NOFA, a Certified (c) Emerging Native CDFIs: For Applicant may receive only one FA Native CDFI is an entity that has purposes of this NOFA, an Emerging award through the FY 2011 Funding received official notification from the Native CDFI is an entity that Round of the CDFI Program or the CDFI Fund that it meets all CDFI demonstrates to the CDFI Fund’s NACA Program. A NACA Program certification requirements as of the date satisfaction that it has a reasonable plan Applicant, its Subsidiaries, or Affiliates of publication of this NOFA, the to be a certified Native CDFI within two also may apply for and receive a Bank certification of which has not expired calendar years after both entities enter Enterprise Award (BEA) Program award, and that has not been notified by the into an Assistance Agreement or such provided however that the activities CDFI Fund that its certification has been other date selected by the CDFI Fund. approved for BEA Program awards were terminated. In cases where the CDFI Emerging Native CDFIs may apply for not funded by the proceeds of a NACA Fund provided Native CDFIs with TA grants only and are not eligible to Program award. A NACA Program written notification that their apply for FA awards. Each Emerging Applicant, its Subsidiaries, or Affiliates certifications had been extended, the Native CDFI selected to receive a TA also may apply for and receive a tax CDFI Fund will consider the extended grant will be required, pursuant to its credit allocation through the New certification date (the later date) to Assistance Agreement with the CDFI Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program, determine whether those Native CDFIs Fund, to become certified as a Native but only to the extent that the activities meet this eligibility requirement. When CDFI by a certain date. approved for NACA Program awards are applicable, each such Applicant must (d) Sponsoring Entities: For the different from those activities for which submit a Certification of Material Events purposes of this NOFA, a Sponsoring the Applicant receives a NMTC Program form to the CDFI Fund not later than the Entity is an entity that proposes to allocation. deadline indicated in Section IV. F. create a separate legal entity that will B. Prior Awardees: Applicants must Application Deadlines. The Certification become a certified Native CDFI. be aware that success in a prior round of Material Events form can be found on Sponsoring Entities include: (a) A Tribe, of any of the CDFI Fund’s programs is the CDFI Fund’s Web site at http:// Tribal entity, Alaska Native Village, not indicative of success under this www.CDFIfund.gov. Village Corporation, Regional NOFA. For purposes of this section, the (b) Certifiable Native CDFIs: For Corporation, Non-Profit Regional CDFI Fund will consider an Affiliate to purposes of this NOFA, a Certifiable Corporation/Association, or Inter-Tribal be any entity that meets the definition Native CDFI is an entity from which the or Inter-Village organization; or (b) an of Affiliate in the Regulations or an CDFI Fund has received a complete organization whose primary mission is entity otherwise identified as an CDFI Certification application no later to serve a Native Community including, Affiliate by the Applicant in its funding than the deadline indicated in Section but not limited to, an Urban Indian application under this NOFA. Prior IV. F—Application Deadlines, Center, Tribally Controlled Community Awardees should note the following: evidencing that the Applicant meets the College, community development 1. $5 million Funding Cap: Congress requirements to be certified as a Native corporation (CDC), training or education waived the $5 million funding cap for CDFI. The CDFI Certification organization, or Chamber of Commerce, the FY 2009 and FY 2010 Funding application can be found on the CDFI and that primarily serves a Native Rounds, and it is possible that the $5 Fund’s Web site at http:// Community (meaning, at least 50 million funding cap may be waived for www.CDFIfund.gov. If the CDFI Fund is percent of its activities are directed the FY 2011 Funding Round as well. As unable to certify the organization as a toward the Native Community). of the publication date of this NOFA, Native CDFI based on the CDFI Sponsoring Entities may only apply for however, such a waiver has not been certification application submitted to TA grants; they are not eligible to apply enacted into law. Accordingly, the CDFI

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68029

Fund is currently prohibited from agreement and (ii) the CDFI Fund has allocation, or award agreement(s) falls obligating more than $5 million in yet to make a final determination as to within the 12-month period prior to the assistance, in the aggregate, to any one whether the entity is in default of its application deadline of this NOFA. organization and its Subsidiaries and previous assistance, allocation, or award 6. Undisbursed Award Funds: The Affiliates during any three-year period. agreement, the CDFI Fund will consider CDFI Fund will not consider an In general, the three-year period extends the Applicant’s application under this Applicant’s application if the Applicant back three years from the date that the NOFA pending full resolution, in the or an Affiliate of the Applicant is a prior CDFI Fund signs an award agreement; sole determination of the CDFI Fund, of Awardee under any CDFI Fund program for purposes of this NOFA, and for ease the noncompliance. and has undisbursed award funds (as of administration, the CDFI Fund will 4. Default Status: The CDFI Fund will defined below) as of this NOFA’s consider any assistance documented not consider an application submitted application deadline. The Fund will with a Notice of Award or Assistance by an Applicant that is a prior Awardee include the combined undisbursed prior Agreement dated between July 1, 2008 or Allocatee under any CDFI Fund awards, as of this NOFAs application and July 1, 2011 (which is the program if, as of the applicable deadline, of the Applicant and affiliated anticipated date that the CDFI Fund will application deadline of this NOFA, the entities, including those in which the issue assistance agreements for the FY CDFI Fund has made a final affiliated entity Controls the Applicant, 2011 Funding Round). However, in light determination that such Applicant is in is Controlled by the Applicant, or shares of the possibility of a waiver of the $5 default of a previously executed common management officials with the million funding cap, an Applicant who assistance, allocation, or award Applicant as determined by the Fund. is otherwise eligible under this NOFA, agreement(s). Further, an entity is not Undisbursed BEA Program award and is requesting an award amount that eligible to apply for an award pursuant funds will be included in the would cause the Applicant to exceed to this NOFA if, as of the applicable calculation of undisbursed awards for the $5 million funding cap, should application deadline of this NOFA, the the Applicant (and any Affiliates) from submit an Application under this CDFI Fund has made a final three to five calendar years prior to the NOFA. The CDFI Fund will assess determination that an Affiliate of the end of the calendar year of this NOFA’s applicability of the $5 million funding Applicant is a prior Awardee or application deadline. Thus, for purposes cap during the award selection phase Allocatee under any CDFI Fund of this NOFA, undisbursed awards based upon whether the Congressional program and has been determined by made in FYs 2005, 2006, and 2007 will waiver has been enacted at that time. the CDFI Fund to be in default of a be included in the calculation for the 2. Failure to Meet Reporting previously executed assistance, Applicant’s undisbursed award amounts Requirements: The CDFI Fund will not allocation, or award agreement(s). Such if the funds have not been disbursed as consider an application submitted by an entities will be ineligible to apply for an of this NOFA’s application deadline. Applicant if the Applicant, or an award pursuant to this NOFA so long as Undisbursed funds for the CDFI and Affiliate of the Applicant, is a prior the Applicant’s, or its Affiliate’s, prior NACA Programs will be calculated by Awardee or Allocatee under any CDFI award or allocation remains in default adding all undisbursed award amounts Fund program and is not current on the status or such other time period as made to the Applicant (and any reporting requirements set forth in a specified by the CDFI Fund in writing. Affiliates) two to five calendar years previously executed assistance, 5. Termination in Default: The CDFI prior to the end of the calendar year of allocation, or award agreement(s), as of Fund will not consider an application this NOFA. Therefore, undisbursed the applicable application deadline of submitted by an Applicant that is a CDFI Program and NACA awards made this NOFA. Please note that the CDFI prior Awardee or Allocatee under any in FYs 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 will Fund only acknowledges the receipt of CDFI Fund program if (i) within the be included in the undisbursed reports that are complete. As such, 12-month period prior to the applicable calculation as of this NOFA’s incomplete reports or reports that are application deadline of this NOFA, the application deadline. deficient of required elements will not CDFI Fund has made a final Undisbursed awards can not exceed be recognized as having been received. determination that such Applicant‘s five percent of the total includable 3. Pending Resolution of prior award or allocation terminated in awards for the Applicant’s BEA/CDFI/ Noncompliance: If an Applicant is a default of a previously executed NACA awards, as of this NOFA’s prior Awardee or Allocatee under any assistance, allocation, or award application deadline. (The total CDFI Fund program and if (i) it has agreement(s), and (ii) the final reporting ‘‘includable’’ award amount is the total submitted complete and timely reports period end date for the applicable award amount from the relevant Fund to the CDFI Fund that demonstrate terminated assistance, allocation, or program.) Please refer to an example of noncompliance with a previous award agreement(s) falls within the this calculation on the Fund’s Web site, assistance, allocation, or award 12-month period prior to the application found in the Q&A document for the FY agreement, and (ii) the CDFI Fund has deadline of this NOFA. Further, an 2011 Funding Round. yet to make a final determination as to entity is not eligible to apply for an The ‘‘undisbursed award funds’’ whether the entity is in default of its award pursuant to this NOFA if (i) calculation does not include: (i) Tax previous assistance, allocation, or award within the 12-month period prior to the credit allocation authority made agreement, the CDFI Fund will consider applicable application deadline, the available through the NMTC Program; the Applicant’s application under this CDFI Fund has made a final (ii) award funds the Awardee has NOFA pending full resolution, in the determination that an Affiliate of the requested from the Fund by submitting sole determination of the CDFI Fund, of Applicant is a prior Awardee or a full and complete disbursement the noncompliance. Further, if an Allocatee under any CDFI Fund request before this NOFA’s application Affiliate of the Applicant is a prior CDFI program whose award or allocation deadline; (iii) award funds for an award Fund Awardee or Allocatee and if such terminated in default of a previously that the Fund has terminated or de- entity (i) has submitted complete and executed assistance, allocation, or obligated; or (iv) award funds for an timely reports to the CDFI Fund that award agreement(s), and (ii) the final award that does not have a fully demonstrate noncompliance with a reporting period end date for the executed assistance or award agreement. previous assistance, allocation, or award applicable terminated assistance, The Fund encourages Applicants to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

request their undisbursed funds from from a prior FA award under the NACA grant, the Applicant must provide the the Fund at least 10 business days prior or CDFI Program or under another CDFI Fund with a copy of the grant to this NOFA’s application deadline. Federal grant or award program to letter or agreement for all grants of 7. Contact the CDFI Fund: Applicants satisfy the matching funds requirement $50,000 or more. For an equity that are prior CDFI Fund Awardees are of this NOFA. If an Applicant seeks to investment, the Applicant must provide advised to: (i) Comply with use as matching funds monies received the CDFI Fund with a copy of the stock requirements specified in assistance, from an organization that was a prior certificate and any related shareholder allocation, and/or award agreement(s), Awardee under the NACA or CDFI agreement. Further, if the matching and (ii) contact the CDFI Fund to ensure Program, the CDFI Fund will deem such funds are ‘‘in-hand’’, the Applicant must that all necessary actions are underway funds to be Federal funds, unless the provide the CDFI Fund with acceptable for the disbursement or deobligation of funding entity establishes to the documentation that evidences its receipt any outstanding balance of said prior reasonable satisfaction of the CDFI Fund of the matching funds proceeds, such as award(s). An Applicant that is unsure that such funds do not consist, in whole a copy of a check or a wire transfer about the disbursement status of any or in part, of NACA or CDFI Program statement. prior award should contact the CDFI funds or other Federal funds. For the (b) ‘‘Firmly committed matching Fund via e-mail at purposes of this NOFA, BEA Program funds’’ means the Applicant has entered [email protected]. awards may not be used as matching into or received a legally binding C. Matching Funds: Congress waived funds. The CDFI Fund encourages commitment from the matching funds the matching funds requirements for the Applicants to review the Regulations at source that the matching funds will be FY 2009 and the FY 2010 Funding 12 CFR 1805.500 et seq. and matching disbursed to the Applicant. If the Rounds, and it is possible that the funds guidance materials on the CDFI matching funds are ‘‘firmly committed,’’ matching funds requirements may be Fund’s Web site for further information. the Applicant must provide the CDFI waived for the FY 2011 Funding Round 2. Due to funding constraints and the Fund with acceptable written as well. As of the publication date of desire to quickly deploy CDFI Fund documentation to evidence the source, this NOFA, however, such a waiver has dollars, the CDFI Fund will not consider form, and amount of the firm not been enacted into law. Accordingly, for a FA award any Applicant that has commitment (and, in the case of a loan, the CDFI Fund encourages Applicants to no matching funds in-hand or firmly the terms thereof), as well as the include matching funds documentation committed as of the application anticipated date of disbursement of the as instructed in the application; if the deadline of this NOFA. An Applicant committed funds. matching funds waiver is enacted, the for a FA award must demonstrate that 4. The CDFI Fund may contact the CDFI Fund will not consider matching it has eligible matching funds equal to matching funds source to discuss the funds documentation. An Applicant no less than 25 percent of the amount matching funds and the documentation that does not include matching funds of the FA award requested in-hand or provided by the Applicant. If the CDFI documentation in its application runs firmly committed, on or after January 1, Fund determines that any portion of the the risk of being determined to be 2009, and on or before the application Applicant’s matching funds is ineligible ineligible for funding under the FY 2011 deadline. The CDFI Fund reserves the under this NOFA, the CDFI Fund, in its Funding Round if said matching funds right to rescind all or a portion of a FA sole discretion, may permit the waiver is not enacted. In light of the award and re-allocate the rescinded Applicant to offer alternative matching possibility of a waiver of the matching award amount to other qualified funds as a substitute for the ineligible funds requirements, an Applicant who Applicant(s), if an Applicant fails to matching funds; provided, however, would not satisfy the matching funds obtain in-hand 100 percent of the that (i) the Applicant must provide requirements but is otherwise eligible required matching funds by March 14, acceptable alternative matching funds under this NOFA should submit an 2012 (with required documentation of documentation within two business application under this NOFA. The CDFI such receipt received by the CDFI Fund days of the CDFI Fund’s request and (ii) Fund will assess applicability of the not later than March 31, 2012), or to the alternative matching funds matching funds requirements during the grant an extension of such matching documentation cannot increase the total award selection phase based upon funds deadline for specific Applicants amount of Financial Assistance whether the Congressional waiver has selected to receive FA awards, if the requested by the Applicant. been enacted at that time. CDFI Fund deems it appropriate. For 5. Special Rule for Insured Credit Accordingly, subject to the any Applicant that demonstrates that it Unions: The Regulations allow an immediately preceding paragraph: has less than 100 percent of matching Insured Credit Union to use retained 1. Applicants responding to this funds in-hand or firmly committed as of earnings to serve as matching funds for NOFA must obtain non-Federal the application deadline, the CDFI Fund a FA grant in an amount equal to: matching funds from sources other than will evaluate the Applicant’s ability to (i) The increase in retained earnings that the Federal government on the basis of raise the remaining matching funds by has occurred over the Applicant’s most not less than one dollar for each dollar March 14, 2012. recent fiscal year; (ii) the annual average of FA funds provided by the CDFI Fund 3. Matching Funds Terms Defined; of such increases that has occurred over (matching funds are not required for TA Required Documentation. (a) ‘‘Matching the Applicant’s three most recent fiscal grants). Matching funds must be at least funds in-hand’’ means the Applicant has years; or (iii) the entire retained comparable in form and value to the FA actually received the matching funds. If earnings that have been accumulated provided by the CDFI Fund. For the matching funds are ‘‘in-hand,’’ the since the inception of the Applicant, as example, if an Applicant is requesting a Applicant must provide the CDFI Fund provided in the Regulations. For FA award from the CDFI Fund, the with acceptable written documentation purposes of this NOFA, if option (iii) is Applicant must show that it has of the source, form, and amount of the used, the Applicant must increase its obtained matching funds through matching funds (i.e., grant, loan, member and/or non-member shares or commitment(s) from non-Federal deposit, and equity investment). For a total loans outstanding by an amount sources that are at least equal to the loan, the Applicant must provide the that is equal to the amount of retained amount requested from the CDFI Fund. CDFI Fund with a copy of the loan earnings that is committed as matching Applicants cannot use matching funds agreement and promissory note. For a funds.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68031

This amount must be raised by the information on myCDFIFund, please see Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering end of the Awardee’s second the ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions’’ link System (DUNS) number pursuant to performance period, as set forth in its posted at https://www.cdfifund.gov/ OMB guidance (68 FR 38402). In Assistance Agreement, and will be myCDFI/Help/Help.asp. addition, each application must include based on amounts reported in the B. Form of Application Submission: a valid and current Employer Applicant’s Audited or Reviewed Applicants must submit applications Identification Number (EIN). An Financial Statements or NCUA Form under this NOFA electronically. electronic application that does not 5300 Call Report. The CDFI Fund will Applications sent by email, mail, include an EIN is incomplete and assess the likelihood of this increase facsimile, or other forms will not be cannot be transmitted to the CDFI Fund during the application review process. accepted except in circumstances the through Grants.gov. Applicants should An award will not be made to any CDFI Fund approves beforehand. allow sufficient time for the Internal Applicant that has not demonstrated C. Applications Submitted via Revenue Service (IRS) and/or Dun and that it has increased shares or loans by Grants.gov: For the FY 2011 Funding Bradstreet to respond to inquiries and/ at least 25 percent of the requested FA Round, in compliance with Public Law or requests for identification numbers. award amount between December 31, 106–107 and Section 5(a) of the Federal Once an application is submitted, the 2009 and December 31, 2010, as Financial Assistance Management Applicant will not be allowed to change demonstrated by the corresponding Improvement Act of 1999, the CDFI any element of the application. The NCUA report. Fund is accepting applications preceding sentences do not limit the submitted through the Grants.gov CDFI Fund’s ability to contact an IV. Application and Submission electronic system. Applicants are Applicant for the purpose of obtaining Information encouraged to start the registration clarifying or confirming application process upon review of the NOFA at information. A. MyCDFIFund Accounts: All http://www.Grants.gov. The process may Applicants must register user and take several weeks to fully complete. E. Under the Paperwork Reduction organization accounts in myCDFIFund, See the following link for information Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), an agency the CDFI Fund’s Internet-based on getting started on Grants.gov: may not conduct or sponsor a collection interface. An Applicant must be http://grants.gov/assets/ of information, and an individual is not registered as both a user and an GrantsgovCoBrandBrochure8X11.pdf. required to respond to a collection of organization in myCDFIFund as of the Please note that the CDFI Fund will not information, unless it displays a valid applicable application deadline in order accept applications through OMB control number. Pursuant to the to be considered to have submitted a myCDFIFund. Paperwork Reduction Act, the complete application. As myCDFIFund D. Application Content Requirements: application has been assigned the is the CDFI Fund’s primary means of Detailed application content following control number: 1559–0025. communication with Applicants and requirements, including the required F. Application Deadlines: 1. The Awardees, organizations must make elements of the Comprehensive following are the deadlines for sure that they update the contact Business Plan, are found in the submission of the NACA Program information in their myCDFIFund application and guidance. Each Funding Application, the CDFI accounts before the applicable Applicant must provide, as part of its Certification Application, and the application deadline. For more application submission, a Dun and Certification of Material Events form:

TABLE 2—FY 2011 NACA PROGRAM DEADLINES [All eastern time deadlines]

Document Must be received by: Deadlines for contacting CDFI Fund staff

CDFI Certification Application ...... Thursday, December 2, 2010 by 5 p.m ...... Wednesday, December 1, 2010 by 5 p.m. Certification of Material Events Form ...... Thursday, December 2, 2010 by 5 p.m ...... Wednesday, December 1, 2010 by 5 p.m. NACA Program Funding Application ...... Wednesday, December 22, 2010 by 11:59 p.m .. Monday, December 20, 2010 by 11:59 p.m.

2. Late Delivery: The CDFI Fund will with 1-inch margins. Each section in the to the five sections required in the neither accept a late application nor any application that is scored has page application. The CDFI Fund will score portion of an application that is late; an limitations. Applicants are encouraged each section as indicated in the application that is late, or for which any to read each section carefully and to following table: portion is late, will be rejected. The remain within the page limitations for CDFI Fund will not grant exceptions or each section. The CDFI Fund will not TABLE 3—APPLICATION SCORING waivers. Any application that is deemed consider responses beyond the specified CRITERIA ineligible will not be returned to the page limitation in each section. Also, Applicant. the CDFI Fund will read only Scoring G. Intergovernmental Review: Not information requested in the application Application sections points applicable. and will not read attachments that have H. Funding Restrictions: For not been specifically requested in this Market Analysis ...... 25 allowable uses of FA proceeds, please NOFA or the application, such as the Business Strategy ...... 25 see the Regulations at 12 CFR 1805.301. Applicant’s five-year strategic or Community Development Per- marketing plans. formance & Effective Use ...... 20 V. Application Review Information Management ...... 20 B. Criteria: The CDFI Fund will Financial Health & Viability ...... 10 A. Format: Funding applications must evaluate each application on a 100-point be single-spaced and use a 12-point font scale using numeric scores with respect

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

C. Technical Assistance Proposal: not meet eligibility requirements will application deadline under this NOFA. Any Applicant applying for a TA grant, not be returned to the Applicant. Any award deobligations that result in either alone or in conjunction with a 2. Substantive Review: If an a point deduction for an application request for a FA award, must complete application is determined to be submitted under this NOFA will not be a Technical Assistance Proposal (TAP) complete and the Applicant is counted against future applications for as part of its application. The TAP determined to be eligible, the CDFI FA through the NACA Program. In the consists of a summary of the Fund will conduct the substantive case of an Applicant that has previously organizational improvements needed to review of the application in accordance received funding through any CDFI achieve the objectives of the with the criteria and procedures Fund program, the CDFI Fund will Comprehensive Business Plan, a budget, described in the Regulations, this consider and may, in its discretion, and a description of the requested goods NOFA, and the application and deduct points for those Applicants that and/or services comprising the TA guidance. As part of the review process, have in any proceeding instituted award request. The budget and the CDFI Fund may contact the against the Applicant in, by, or before accompanying narrative will be Applicant by telephone, e-mail, mail, or any court, governmental, or evaluated for the eligibility and through an on-site visit for the sole administrative body or agency received appropriateness of the proposed uses of purpose of obtaining clarifying or a final determination within the last the TA grant (described above). In confirming application information three years indicating that the Applicant addition, if the Applicant identifies a (such as statements of work, matching has discriminated on the basis of race, capacity-building need related to any of funds documentation, or DUNS color, national origin, disability, age, the evaluation criteria above (for numbers for example). After submitting marital status, receipt of income from example, if the Applicant requires a its application, the Applicant will not public assistance, religion, or sex. market need analysis or a community be permitted to revise or modify its (c) Ranking: The CDFI Fund then will development impact tracking/reporting application in any way nor attempt to rank the applications by their scores, system), the CDFI Fund will assess its negotiate the terms of an award. If from highest to lowest. plan to use the TA grant to address said contacted for clarifying or confirming 4. Award Selection: The CDFI Fund needs. information, the Applicant must will make its final award selections 1. Non-Certified Applicants: An respond within the time parameters set based on the rank order of Applicants Applicant that is not a Certified Native by the CDFI Fund. by their scores and the amount of funds CDFI and that requests TA to address 3. Application Scoring; Ranking: (a) available. In the case of a tied score(s), certification requirements must explain Application Scoring: The CDFI Fund Applicants will be ranked according to how the requested TA grant will assist will evaluate each application on a each Applicant’s combined scores in the the Applicant in meeting the 100-point scale, comprising the five Market Analysis, Business Strategy, and certification requirements. The CDFI criteria categories described above, and Community Development Performance Fund will assess the reasonableness of assign numeric scores. An Applicant & Effective Use sections; then the score the plan to become certified (as must receive a minimum score in each on the Financial Health and Viability specified above in Section III, Eligibility evaluation criteria in order to be section; then the score on the Information; A.3. Native CDFI considered for an award. Management section. In addition, the Certification Requirements), taking into (b) Evaluating Prior Award CDFI Fund shall consider the account the requested TA. For example, Performance: In the case of an institutional and geographic diversity of if the Applicant does not currently make Applicant that has previously received Applicants when making its funding loans and therefore does not meet the funding through any CDFI Fund decisions. Financing Entity requirement, it might program, the CDFI Fund will consider 5. Insured Native CDFIs: In the case of describe how the TA funds will be used and will deduct points for: (i) The Insured Depository Institutions and to hire a consultant to develop Applicant’s noncompliance with any Insured Credit Unions, the CDFI Fund underwriting policies and procedures to active award or award that terminated will consider the views of the support the Applicant’s ability to start in the current calendar year in meeting Appropriate Federal Banking Agencies. its lending activity. its performance goals and measures, Throughout the award review process, 2. Recurring Activities: An Applicant reporting deadlines, and other the CDFI Fund will consult with the that requests a TA grant for recurring requirements set forth in the assistance Appropriate Federal Banking Agency activities must clearly describe the or award agreement(s) with the CDFI about the Applicant’s financial safety benefit that would accrue to its capacity Fund during the Applicant’s two and soundness. If the Appropriate or to its Target Market(s) (such as plans complete fiscal years prior to the Federal Banking Agency identifies for expansion of staff, market, products application deadline of this NOFA; (ii) safety and soundness concerns, the or annual conference attendance) as a the Applicant’s failure to make timely CDFI Fund will assess whether the result of the TA grant. If the Applicant loan payments to the CDFI Fund during concerns cause or will cause the is a prior CDFI Fund Awardee, it must the Applicant’s two complete fiscal Applicant to be incapable of describe how it has used the prior years prior to the application deadline undertaking the activities for which assistance and explain the need for of this NOFA (if applicable); (iii) funding has been requested. If it is additional CDFI Fund dollars over and performance on any prior Assistance determined the Applicant is incapable above such prior assistance. Agreement as part of the overall of meeting its obligations, the CDFI D. Review and Selection Process: 1. assessment of the Applicant’s ability to Fund reserves the right to deselect the Eligibility and Completeness Review: carry out its Comprehensive Business Applicant from receiving an award. The The CDFI Fund will review each Plan; and (iv) funds deobligated from a CDFI Fund also reserves the right to application to determine whether it is FY 2008, 2009, or 2010 FA award (if the require insured NACA Applicants to complete and the Applicant meets the Applicant is applying for a FA award improve safety and soundness eligibility requirements set forth above. under this NOFA) if (A) the amount of conditions prior to receiving an award An incomplete application does not deobligated funds is at least $200,000 disbursement. In addition, the CDFI meet eligibility requirements and will and (B) the deobligation occurred Fund will take into consideration be rejected. Any application that does within the 12 months prior to the Community Reinvestment Act

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68033

assessments of Insured Depository only Assistance Agreements generally CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole Institutions and/or their Affiliates. will have two-year performance periods. discretion, to terminate and rescind the 6. Award Notification: Each Applicant If prior to entering into an Assistance Assistance Agreement and the award will be informed of the CDFI Fund’s Agreement with the CDFI Fund, made under this NOFA. award decision either through information (including administrative 2. Pending Resolution of notification in the Applicant’s error) comes to the attention of the CDFI Noncompliance: If an Applicant is a myCDFIFund account, via e-mail to the Fund that either adversely affects the prior Awardee or Allocatee under any Applicant’s Authorized Official Awardee’s eligibility for an award, or CDFI Fund program and if: (i) It has Representative. This includes adversely affects the CDFI Fund’s submitted complete and timely reports notification to Applicants who are not evaluation of the Awardee’s application, to the CDFI Fund that demonstrate receiving an award if the decision is or indicates fraud or mismanagement on noncompliance with a previous based on reasons other than the part of the Awardee, the CDFI Fund assistance, award, or allocation completeness and eligibility. The CDFI may, in its discretion and without agreement; and (ii) the CDFI Fund has Fund will provide feedback in a format advance notice to the Awardee, yet to make a final determination as to and within a timeframe depending on terminate the award or take such other whether the entity is in default of its available resources. actions as it deems appropriate. previous assistance, award, or allocation 7. The CDFI Fund reserves the right Moreover, if prior to entering into an agreement, the CDFI Fund reserves the to reject an application if information Assistance Agreement with the CDFI right, in its sole discretion, to delay (including administrative errors) comes Fund, the CDFI Fund determines that entering into an Assistance Agreement, to the attention of the CDFI Fund that the Awardee or an Affiliate of the pending full resolution, in the sole either adversely affects an Applicant’s Awardee is in default of any Assistance determination of the CDFI Fund, of the eligibility for an award, adversely affects Agreement previously entered into with noncompliance. Further, if an Affiliate the CDFI Fund’s evaluation or scoring of the CDFI Fund, the CDFI Fund may, in of the Awardee is a prior CDFI Fund an application, or indicates fraud or its discretion and without advance Awardee or Allocatee and if such entity mismanagement on the part of an notice to the Awardee, either terminate (i) has submitted complete and timely Applicant. If the CDFI Fund determines the award or take such other actions as reports to the CDFI Fund that that any portion of the application is it deems appropriate. For purposes of demonstrate noncompliance with a incorrect in any material respect, the this section, the CDFI Fund will previous assistance, award, or allocation CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole consider an Affiliate to mean any entity agreement, and (ii) the CDFI Fund has discretion, to reject the application. The that meets the definition of Affiliate in yet to make a final determination as to CDFI Fund reserves the right to change the Regulations. The CDFI Fund whether the entity is in default of its its eligibility and evaluation criteria and reserves the right, in its sole discretion, previous assistance, award, or allocation procedures, if the CDFI Fund deems it to rescind an award if the Awardee fails agreement, the CDFI Fund reserves the appropriate; if said changes materially to return the Assistance Agreement, right, in its sole discretion, to delay affect the CDFI Fund’s award decisions, signed by the Authorized Representative entering into an Assistance Agreement, the CDFI Fund will provide information of the Awardee, and/or provide the pending full resolution, in the sole regarding the changes through the CDFI CDFI Fund with any other requested determination of the CDFI Fund, of the Fund’s Web site. There is no right to documentation, within the deadlines set noncompliance. If the prior Awardee or appeal the CDFI Fund’s award Allocatee in question is unable to by the CDFI Fund. Each Awardee must decisions. The CDFI Fund’s award satisfactorily resolve the issues of provide the CDFI Fund with a good decisions are final. noncompliance, in the sole standing certificate (or equivalent determination of the CDFI Fund, the VI. Award Administration Information documentation) from its State (or CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole jurisdiction) of incorporation. A. Assistance Agreement: Each discretion, to terminate and rescind the Applicant that is selected to receive an 1. Failure to Meet Reporting Assistance Agreement and the award award under this NOFA must enter into Requirements: If an Awardee or an made under this NOFA. an Assistance Agreement with the CDFI Affiliate of the Awardee is a prior 3. Default Status: If, at any time prior Fund in order to receive disbursement Awardee or Allocatee under any CDFI to entering into an Assistance of award proceeds. The Assistance Fund program and is not current on the Agreement through this NOFA, the Agreement will set forth certain reporting requirements set forth in the CDFI Fund has made a final required terms and conditions of the previously executed assistance, determination that an Awardee that is a award, which will include, but not be allocation, or award agreement(s), as of prior Awardee or Allocatee under any limited to: (i) The amount of the award; the date of the Assistance Agreement, CDFI Fund program is in default of a (ii) the type of award; (iii) the approved the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its previously executed assistance, uses of the award; (iv) the approved sole discretion, to delay entering into an allocation, or award agreement(s), the eligible market to which the funded Assistance Agreement until said prior CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole activity must be targeted; (v) Awardee or Allocatee is current on the discretion, to delay entering into an performance goals and measures; and reporting requirements in any Assistance Agreement, until said prior (vi) reporting requirements for all previously executed assistance, Awardee or Allocatee has submitted a Awardees. Applicants should review allocation, or award agreement(s). complete and timely report the OMB Guidance: Requirements for Please note that the CDFI Fund only demonstrating full compliance with said Federal Funding Accountability and acknowledges the receipt of reports that agreement within a timeframe set by the Transparency Act Implementation (2 are complete. As such, incomplete CDFI Fund. Further, if at any time prior CFR part 170) to ensure that they have reports or reports that are deficient of to entering into an Assistance processes and systems in place to required elements will not be Agreement through this NOFA, the comply with the reporting obligations. recognized as having been received. If CDFI Fund has made a final FA and FA/TA Assistance Agreements said prior Awardee or Allocatee is determination that an Affiliate of the under this NOFA generally will have unable to meet this requirement within Awardee is a prior Awardee or three-year performance periods; TA- the timeframe set by the CDFI Fund, the Allocatee under any CDFI Fund

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

program and is in default of a against the Awardee in, by, or before by the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund previously executed assistance, any court, governmental, or reserves the right, in its sole discretion, allocation, or award agreement(s), the administrative body or agency, to modify these reporting requirements CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole declaring that the Awardee has if it determines it to be appropriate and discretion, to delay entering into an discriminated on the basis of race, color, necessary; however, such reporting Assistance Agreement, until said prior national origin, disability, age, marital requirements will be modified only after Awardee or Allocatee has submitted a status, receipt of income from public notice to Awardees. Furthermore, in complete and timely report assistance, religion, or sex, the CDFI order to ensure compliance with demonstrating full compliance with said Fund reserves the right, in its sole reporting requirements, all Awardees agreement within a timeframe set by the discretion, to terminate and rescind the will be required to participate in a post- CDFI Fund. If said prior Awardee or award made under this NOFA. award training session on the CDFI Allocatee is unable to meet this B. Reporting: 1. Reporting Fund’s reporting requirements. requirement and the CDFI Fund has not Requirements: The CDFI Fund will Awardees who fail to participate in such specified in writing that the prior collect information, on at least an training run the risk of having the award Awardee or Allocatee is otherwise annual basis, from each Awardee rescinded or future applications eligible to receive an Award under this including, but not limited to, an Annual penalized by point deductions. NOFA, the CDFI Fund reserves the Report that comprises the following 2. Accounting: The CDFI Fund will right, in its sole discretion, to terminate components: (i) Financial Reports require each Awardee that receives FA and rescind the Assistance Agreement (including an OMB A–133 audit, as and TA awards through this NOFA to and the award made under this NOFA. applicable; however Financial Reports account for and track the use of said FA 4. Termination in Default: If (i) within are not required of Sponsoring Entities); and TA awards. This means that for the 12-month period prior to entering (ii) Institution Level Report; (iii) every dollar of FA and TA awards into an Assistance Agreement through Transaction Level Report (for Awardees received from the CDFI Fund, the this NOFA, the CDFI Fund has made a receiving FA awards); (iv) Financial Awardee will be required to inform the final determination that an Awardee is Status Report form SF–269/SF–425 (for CDFI Fund of its uses. This will require a prior Awardee or Allocatee under any Awardees receiving TA grants); (v) Uses Awardees to establish separate CDFI Fund program whose award or of Financial Assistance (for Awardees administrative and accounting controls, allocation was terminated in default of receiving FA awards); (vi) Explanation subject to the applicable OMB Circulars. such prior agreement, and (ii) the final of Noncompliance (as applicable); and The CDFI Fund will provide guidance to reporting period end date for the (vii) such other information as the CDFI Awardees outlining the format and applicable terminated agreement falls Fund may require. Each Awardee is content of the information to be within the 12-month period prior to the responsible for the timely and complete provided on an annual basis, outlining application deadline of this NOFA, the submission of the Annual Report, even and describing how the funds were CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole if all or a portion of the documents used. Each Awardee that receives an discretion, to delay entering into or actually is completed by another entity award must provide the CDFI Fund with determine not to enter into an or signatory to the Assistance the required complete and accurate Assistance Agreement. Further, if (i) Agreement. If such other entities or Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) form within the 12-month period prior to signatories are required to provide for its bank account prior to award entering into an Assistance Agreement Institution Level Reports, Transaction closing and disbursement. through this NOFA, the CDFI Fund has Level Reports, Financial Reports, or VII. Agency Contacts made a final determination that an other documentation that the CDFI Affiliate of the Awardee is a prior Fund may require, the Awardee is A. The CDFI Fund will respond to Awardee or Allocatee under any CDFI responsible for ensuring that the questions and provide support Fund program whose award or information is submitted timely and concerning this NOFA and the funding allocation was terminated in default of complete. The CDFI Fund reserves the application between the hours of 9 a.m. such prior agreement, and (ii) the final right to contact such additional entities and 5 p.m. ET, starting the date of the reporting period end date for the or signatories to the Assistance publication of this NOFA through three applicable terminated agreement falls Agreement and require that additional business days prior to the application within the 12-month period prior to the information and documentation be deadline. The CDFI Fund will not application deadline of this NOFA, the provided. The CDFI Fund will use such respond to questions or provide support CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole information to monitor each Awardee’s concerning the applications that are discretion, to delay entering into or compliance with the requirements set received after 5 p.m. ET on said dates, determine not to enter into an forth in the Assistance Agreement and until after the funding application Assistance Agreement. to assess the impact of the NACA deadline. Applications and other 5. Compliance with Federal Anti- Program. The Institution Level Report information regarding the CDFI Fund Discrimination Laws: If the Awardee has and the Transaction Level Report must and its programs may be obtained from previously received funding through be submitted through the CDFI Fund’s the CDFI Fund’s Web site at http:// any CDFI Fund program, and if at any Web-based data collection system, the www.cdfifund.gov. The CDFI Fund will time prior to entering into an Assistance Community Investment Impact System post responses on its Web site to Agreement through this NOFA, the (CIIS). The Financial Reports may be questions of general applicability CDFI Fund is made aware of a final submitted through CIIS. All other regarding the NACA Program. determination, made within the last components of the Annual Report may B. The CDFI Fund’s contact three years, in any proceeding instituted be submitted electronically, as directed, information is as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68035

TABLE 4—CONTACT INFORMATION

Telephone Type of question number E-mail addresses (not toll free) *

NACA Program ...... 202–622–6355 [email protected]. Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 202–622–6330 [email protected]. Information Technology Support ...... 202–622–2455 [email protected]. * Fax number for all offices: 202–622–7754.

C. Information Technology Support: DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS collection of information they conduct People who have visual or mobility AFFAIRS or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section impairments that prevent them from [OMB Control No. 2900–0708] creating a Target Market map using the 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. CDFI Fund’s Web site should call (202) Proposed Information Collection With respect to the following 622–2455 for assistance (this is not a toll (Evidence for Transfer of Entitlement collection of information, VBA invites free number). of Education Benefits) Activity: comments on: (1) Whether the proposed Comment Request collection of information is necessary D. Communication with the CDFI for the proper performance of VBA’s Fund: The CDFI Fund will use the AGENCY: Veterans Benefits functions, including whether the myCDFIFund Internet interface to Administration, Department of Veterans information will have practical utility; communicate with Applicants and Affairs. (2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of the Awardees, using the contact information ACTION: Notice. burden of the proposed collection of maintained in their respective information; (3) ways to enhance the myCDFIFund accounts. Therefore, the SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits quality, utility, and clarity of the Applicant and any Subsidiaries, Administration (VBA) is announcing an information to be collected; and signatories, and Affiliates must maintain opportunity for public comment on the (4) ways to minimize the burden of the accurate contact information (including proposed collection of certain collection of information on information by the agency. Under the contact person and authorized respondents, including through the use Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of representative, e-mail addresses, fax of automated collection techniques or 1995, Federal agencies are required to the use of other forms of information numbers, phone numbers, and office publish notice in the Federal Register addresses) in its myCDFIFund technology. concerning each proposed collection of Title: Evidence for Transfer of account(s). For more information about information, including each proposed Entitlement of Education Benefits myCDFIFund (which includes extension of a currently approved (38 CFR 21.7080). information about the CDFI Fund’s collection, and allow 60 days for public OMB Control Number: 2900–0708. Community Investment Impact System), comment in response to the notice. This Type of Review: Extension of a please see the Help documents posted at notice solicits comments on information currently approved collection. http://www.cdfifund.gov/ciis/ needed to transfer a servicemember’s Abstract: Servicemembers on active accessingciis.pdf. educational assistance benefits to his or duty may request to designate up to a her dependents. maximum of 18 months of their VIII. Information Sessions and DATES: Written comments and educational assistance entitlement to Outreach recommendations on the proposed their spouse, one or more of their The CDFI Fund may conduct collection of information should be children, or a combination of the spouse webinars or host information sessions received on or before January 3, 2011. and children. VA will accept DOD Form 2366–1 as evidence that the for organizations interested in applying ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through servicemember was approved by the to, or learning about, the CDFI Fund’s military to transfer entitlement. The programs. For further information, Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov servicemember must submit in writing please visit the CDFI Fund’s Web site at to VA, the name of each dependent, the http://www.cdfifund.gov. or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), number of months of entitlement Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4703, 4704, 4706, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 transferred to each dependent, and the 4707, 4717; 12 CFR part 1805. Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC period (beginning date or ending date) Dated: October 29, 2010. 20420 or e-mail for which the transfer will be effective for each designated dependent. VA will Donna J. Gambrell, [email protected]. Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0708’’ in any use the information shown on DOD Director, Community Development Financial Form 2366–1 to determine whether the Institutions Fund. correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online dependent qualifies to receive education [FR Doc. 2010–27802 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] through the FDMS. benefits under the transfer of BILLING CODE 4810–70–P entitlement provision of law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Affected Public: Individuals or Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or households. FAX (202) 275–5947. Estimated Annual Burden: 5,227. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Estimated Average Burden per PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. Respondent: 5 minutes. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must Frequency of Response: Once. obtain approval from the Office of Estimated Number of Respondents: Management and Budget (OMB) for each 62,725.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Dated: October 29, 2010. being made pursuant to Section 1995, Federal agencies are required to By direction of the Secretary. 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. publish notice in the Federal Register Denise McLamb, With respect to the following concerning each proposed collection of Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. collection of information, VBA invites information, including each proposed [FR Doc. 2010–27814 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] comments on: (1) Whether the proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information is necessary BILLING CODE 8320–01–P collection, and allow 60 days for public for the proper performance of VBA’s comment in response to this notice. functions, including whether the This notice solicits comments for DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS information will have practical utility; information needed to determine a AFFAIRS (2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of the claimant’s eligibility for service disabled burden of the proposed collection of insurance. [OMB Control No. 2900–0149] information; (3) ways to enhance the DATES: Written comments and quality, utility, and clarity of the recommendations on the proposed Proposed Information Collection information to be collected; and (4) collection of information should be (Application for Conversion ways to minimize the burden of the received on or before January 3, 2011. (Government Life Insurance)) Activity: collection of information on ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Comment Request respondents, including through the use on the collection of information through of automated collection techniques or AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Federal Docket Management System the use of other forms of information Administration, Department of Veterans (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov; technology. Affairs. or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Title: Application for Conversion Benefits Administration (20M35), ACTION: Notice. (Government Life Insurance), VA Form Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 29–0152. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC OMB Control Number: 2900–0149. Administration (VBA), Department of 20420 or e-mail Type of Review: Extension of a Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an [email protected]. Please refer to currently approved collection. opportunity for public comment on the ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0068 in any Abstract: VA Form 29–0152 is proposed collection of certain correspondence. During the comment completed by insured veterans to information by the agency. Under the period, comments may be viewed online convert his/her term insurance to a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of through FDMS. permanent plan of insurance. 1995, Federal agencies are required to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Affected Public: Individuals or publish notice in the Federal Register Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or households. concerning each proposed collection of FAX (202) 275–5947. Estimated Annual Burden: 1,125 information, including each proposed hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the extension of a currently approved Estimated Average Burden per PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. collection, and allow 60 days for public Respondent: 15 minutes. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must comment in response to the notice. This Frequency of Response: On occasion. obtain approval from the Office of notice solicits comments for information Estimated Number of Respondents: Management and Budget (OMB) for each needed to convert to a permanent plan 4,500. collection of information they conduct of insurance. or sponsor. This request for comment is Dated: October 29, 2010. DATES: Written comments and being made pursuant to Section recommendations on the proposed By direction of the Secretary. 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. collection of information should be Denise McLamb, With respect to the following received on or before January 3, 2011. Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. collection of information, VBA invites ADDRESSES: Submit written comments [FR Doc. 2010–27815 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] comments on: (1) Whether the proposed on the collection of information through BILLING CODE 8320–01–P collection of information is necessary Federal Docket Management System for the proper performance of VBA’s (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov; functions, including whether the or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS information will have practical utility; Benefits Administration (20M35), AFFAIRS (2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 [OMB Control No. 2900–0068] burden of the proposed collection of Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC information; (3) ways to enhance the 20420 or e-mail Proposed Information Collection quality, utility, and clarity of the [email protected]. Please refer to (Application for Service-Disabled information to be collected; and ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0149 in any Veterans Insurance); Comment (4) ways to minimize the burden of the correspondence. During the comment Request collection of information on period, comments may be viewed online respondents, including through the use AGENCY: Veterans Benefits through FDMS. of automated collection techniques or Administration, Department of Veterans the use of other forms of information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Affairs. technology. Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or ACTION: Notice. Title: Application for Service- FAX (202) 275–5947. Disabled Veterans Insurance, VA Forms SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits 29–4364, 29–4364c and 29–0151. PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. Administration (VBA), Department of OMB Control Number: 2900–0068. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an Type of Review: Revision of a obtain approval from the Office of opportunity for public comment on the currently approved collection. Management and Budget (OMB) for each proposed collection of certain Abstract: Veterans complete VA collection of information they conduct information by the agency. Under the Forms 29–4364 and 29–0151 to apply or sponsor. This request for comment is Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of for service-disabled veterans insurance,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68037

designate a beneficiary and select an ADDRESSES: Submit written comments a. VA Form 29–352—30 minutes optional settlement. VA uses the data on the collection of information through b. VA Form 29–353—15 minutes collected on VA Forms 29–4364 and Federal Docket Management System Frequency of Response: On occasion. 29–0151 to determine the claimant’s (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov; Estimated Number of Respondents: eligibility for insurance. or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans a. VA Form 29–352—1,500 VA Form 29–4364c is used by Benefits Administration (20M35), b. VA Form 29–353—1,500 veterans who were rated unemployable Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Dated: October 29, 2010. or with certain severely disabling Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC By direction of the Secretary. conditions. Veterans completing VA 20420 or e-mail Denise McLamb, Form 29–4364c do not need to provide [email protected]. Please refer to Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. medical information to qualify for this ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0011 in any insurance. correspondence. During the comment [FR Doc. 2010–27817 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] Affected Public: Individuals or period, comments may be viewed online BILLING CODE 8320–01–P households. through FDMS. Estimated Annual Burden: 8,333 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: hours. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or AFFAIRS Estimated Average Burden per FAX (202) 275–5947. Respondent: 20 minutes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the [OMB Control No. 2900–0539] Frequency of Response: On occasion. PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. Estimated Number of Respondents: Proposed Information Collection 3501–3521), Federal agencies must 25,000. (Application for Supplemental Service obtain approval from the Office of Dated: October 29, 2010. Disabled Veterans Insurance) Activity: Management and Budget (OMB) for each Comment Request By direction of the Secretary. collection of information they conduct Denise McLamb, or sponsor. This request for comment is AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. being made pursuant to Section Administration, Department of Veterans [FR Doc. 2010–27818 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. Affairs. BILLING CODE 8320–01–P With respect to the following ACTION: Notice. collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS collection of information is necessary Administration (VBA), Department of AFFAIRS for the proper performance of VBA’s Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an functions, including whether the opportunity for public comment on the [OMB Control No. 2900–0011] information will have practical utility; proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Proposed Information Collection (2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of (Application for Reinstatement 1995, Federal agencies are required to (Insurance Lapsed More Than 6 information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the publish notice in the Federal Register Months), and Application for concerning each proposed collection of Reinstatement (Non Medical— information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the information, including each proposed Comparative Health Statement)) extension of a currently approved Activity: Comment Request collection of information on respondents, including through the use collection, and allow 60 days for public AGENCY: Veterans Benefits of automated collection techniques or comment in response to the notice. This Administration, Department of Veterans the use of other forms of information notice solicits comments for information Affairs. technology. needed to determine a claimant’s eligibility for disability insurance. ACTION: Notice. Titles: Application for Reinstatement (Insurance Lapsed More than 6 Months), DATES: Written comments and SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Government Life Insurance and/or Total recommendations on the proposed Administration (VBA), Department of Disability Income Provision, VA Form collection of information should be Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an 29–352, and Application for received on or before January 3, 2011. opportunity for public comment on the Reinstatement (Non Medical— ADDRESSES: Submit written comments proposed collection of certain Comparative Health Statement), on the collection of information through information by the agency. Under the Government Life Insurance, VA Form Federal Docket Management System Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 29–353. (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov; 1995, Federal agencies are required to OMB Control Number: 2900–0011. or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans publish notice in the Federal Register Type of Review: Extension of a Benefits Administration (20M35), concerning each proposed collection of currently approved collection. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 information, including each proposed Abstract: VA Forms 29–352 and 29– Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC extension of a currently approved 353 are used to apply for reinstatement 20420 or e-mail collection, and allow 60 days for public of insurance and/or Total Disability [email protected]. Please refer to comment in response to the notice. This Income Provision that has lapsed for ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0539’’ in any notice solicits comments for information more than six months. VA uses the correspondence. During the comment needed to reinstate a claimant’s information collected to establish the period, comments may be viewed online Government Life Insurance and/or Total applicant’s eligibility for reinstatement. through FDMS. Disability Income Provision. Estimated Annual Burden: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DATES: Written comments and a. VA Form 29–352—750 hours Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or recommendations on the proposed b. VA Form 29–353—375 hours FAX (202) 275–5947. collection of information should be Estimated Average Burden per SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the received on or before January 3, 2011. Respondent: PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

3501–3521), Federal agencies must ACTION: Notice. Dated: November 1, 2010. obtain approval from the Office of By direction of the Secretary. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Management and Budget (OMB) for each Denise McLamb, collection of information they conduct Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. or sponsor. This request for comment is [FR Doc. 2010–27851 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] being made pursuant to Section announces that the Veterans Benefits BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. Administration, Department of Veterans With respect to the following Affairs, will submit the collection of collection of information, VBA invites information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS comments on: (1) Whether the proposed AFFAIRS collection of information is necessary (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of for the proper performance of VBA’s [OMB Control No. 2900–0011] functions, including whether the the information collection and its information will have practical utility; expected cost and burden and includes Agency Information Collection (2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of the the actual data collection instrument. (Application for Reinstatement burden of the proposed collection of DATES: Comments must be submitted on (Insurance Lapsed More than 6 information; (3) ways to enhance the or before December 6, 2010. Months), and Application for quality, utility, and clarity of the ADDRESSES: Submit written comments Reinstatement (Non Medical— information to be collected; and (4) on the collection of information through Comparative Health Statement)) ways to minimize the burden of the http://www.Regulations.gov; or to VA’s Activities Under OMB Review collection of information on OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human respondents, including through the use Resources and Housing Branch, New AGENCY: Veterans Benefits of automated collection techniques or Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Administration, Department of Veterans the use of other forms of information Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316. Affairs. technology. Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– ACTION: Notice. Title: Application for Supplemental 0212’’ in any correspondence. SUMMARY Service Disabled Veterans Insurance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: : In compliance with the (SRH), VA Form 29–0188 and 29–0189, Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 and Application for Supplemental Service (005R1B), Department of (44 U.S.C., 3501 et seq.), this notice Service Disabled Veterans (RH) Life Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, announces that the Veterans Benefits Insurance, VA Form 29–0190. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– Administration (VBA), Department of OMB Control Number: 2900–0539. 7485, fax (202) 273–0443 or e-mail Veterans Affairs, has submitted the Type of Review: Extension of a [email protected]. Please collection of information abstracted currently approved collection. refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0212.’’ below to the Office of Management and Abstract: VA Forms 29–0188, 29– Budget (OMB) for review and comment. 0189 and 29–0190 are completed by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Veterans Mortgage Life The PRA submission describes the veterans to apply for Supplemental nature of the information collection and Service Disabled Veterans Insurance. Insurance Statement, VA Form 29–8636. OMB Control Number: 2900–0212. its expected cost and burden; it includes VA uses the information collected to Type of Review: Extension of a the actual data collection instrument. establish veterans’ eligibility for currently approved collection. DATES: Comments must be submitted on insurance coverage. Abstract: Veterans complete VA Form or before December 6, 2010. Affected Public: Individuals or 29–8636 to decline Veterans Mortgage ADDRESSES: Submit written comments households. Life Insurance (VMLI) or to provide Estimated Annual Burden: 3,333 on the collection of information through information upon which the insurance hours. http://www.Regulations.gov; or to VA’s Estimated Average Burden per premium can be based. VMIL provides OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Respondent: 20 minutes. financial protection to cover eligible Resources and Housing Branch, New Frequency of Response: On occasion. veterans’ outstanding home mortgage in Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Estimated Number of Respondents: the event of his or her death. VMIL is Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–7316. 10,000. available only to disabled veterans, Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– who, because of their disability, have 0011’’ in any correspondence. Dated: October 29, 2010. received a specially adapted housing By direction of the Secretary. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: grant from VA. Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Denise McLamb, An agency may not conduct or Service (005R1B), Department of Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. sponsor, and a person is not required to Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, [FR Doc. 2010–27816 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] respond to a collection of information NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– BILLING CODE 8320–01–P unless it displays a currently valid OMB 7485, fax (202) 273–0443 or e-mail control number. The Federal Register [email protected]. Please Notice with a 60-day comment period refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0011.’’ DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS soliciting comments on this collection AFFAIRS of information was published on August SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [OMB Control No. 2900–0212] 24, 2010, at page 52065. Titles Affected Public: Individuals or Agency Information Collection households. a. Application for Reinstatement (Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Estimated Annual Burden: 113 hours. (Insurance Lapsed More than 6 Months), Statement) Activity Under OMB Review Estimated Average Burden per Government Life Insurance and/or Total Respondent: 15 minutes. Disability Income Provision, VA Form AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Frequency of Response: On occasion. 29–352. Administration, Department of Veterans Estimated Number of Respondents: b. Application for Reinstatement (Non Affairs. 450. Medical—Comparative Health

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68039

Statement), Government Life Insurance, expected cost and burden and includes DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS VA Form 29–353. the actual data collection instrument. AFFAIRS OMB Control Number: 2900–0011. DATES: [OMB Control No. 2900–0159] Type of Review: Extension of a Comments must be submitted on or before December 6, 2010. currently approved. Proposed Information Collection Abstract: VA Forms 29–352 and 29– ADDRESSES: Submit written comments (Matured Endowment Notification) 353 are used to apply for reinstatement on the collection of information through Activity: Comment Request of insurance and/or Total Disability http://www.Regulations.gov; or to VA’s Income Provision that has lapsed for OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human AGENCY: Veterans Benefits more than six months. VA uses the Resources and Housing Branch, New Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. information collected to establish the Executive Office Building, Room 10235, applicant’s eligibility for reinstatement. Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–7316. ACTION: Notice. An agency may not conduct or Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900– SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits sponsor, and a person is not required to 0539’’ in any correspondence. respond to a collection of information Administration (VBA), Department of unless it displays a currently valid OMB FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an control number. The Federal Register Denise McLamb, Records Management opportunity for public comment on the Notice with a 60-day comment period Service (005R1B), Department of proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the soliciting comments on this collection Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of of information was published on August NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– 24, 2010, at pages 52066–52067. 1995, Federal agencies are required to 7485, fax (202) 273–0443 or e-mail publish notice in the Federal Register Estimated Annual Burden [email protected]. Please concerning each proposed collection of refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0539.’’ a. VA Form 29–352—750 hours. information, including each proposed b. VA Form 29–353—375 hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public Title: Application for Supplemental Estimated Average Burden per comment in response to the notice. This Service Disabled Veterans Insurance, Respondent notice solicits comments on information (SRH) Life Insurance, VA Forms needed to determine the disposition of a. VA Form 29–352—30 minutes. 29–0188, 29–0189 and 29–0190. b. VA Form 29–353—15 minutes. proceeds of a matured endowment Frequency of Response: On occasion. OMB Control Number: 2900–0539. policy. Type of Review: Extension of a Estimated Number of Respondents DATES: Written comments and currently approved collection. recommendations on the proposed a. VA Form 29–352—1,500. Abstract: VA Forms collection of information should be b. VA Form 29–353—1,500. 29–0188, 29–0189 and 29–0190 are received on or before January 3, 2011. Dated: November 1, 2010. completed by veterans applying for ADDRESSES: Submit written comments By direction of the Secretary. Supplemental Service Disabled Veterans on the collection of information through Denise McLamb, Insurance. VA uses the information Federal Docket Management System Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. collected to establish veterans’ (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov; or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans [FR Doc. 2010–27853 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] eligibility for insurance coverage. Benefits Administration (20M35), BILLING CODE 8320–01–P An agency may not conduct or Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 sponsor, and a person is not required to Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS respond to a collection of information 20420 or e-mail AFFAIRS unless it displays a currently valid OMB [email protected]. Please refer to control number. The Federal Register ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0159 in any [OMB Control No. 2900–0539] Notice with a 60-day comment period correspondence. During the comment soliciting comments on this collection period, comments may be viewed online Agency Information Collection of information was published on August through FDMS. (Application for Supplemental Service 24, 2010, at page 52066. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Disabled Veterans Insurance) Activity Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or Under OMB Review Affected Public: Individuals or households. FAX (202) 275–5947. AGENCY: Veterans Benefits SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Estimated Annual Burden: 3,333 Administration, Department of Veterans PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. hours. Affairs. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must ACTION: Notice. Estimated Average Burden per obtain approval from the Office of Respondent: 20 minutes. Management and Budget (OMB) for each SUMMARY: In compliance with the Frequency of Response: On occasion. collection of information they conduct Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 or sponsor. This request for comment is Estimated Number of Respondents: (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice being made pursuant to Section announces that the Veterans Benefits 10,000. 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. Administration, Department of Veterans Dated: November 1, 2010. With respect to the following Affairs, will submit the collection of By direction of the Secretary. collection of information, VBA invites information abstracted below to the Denise McLamb, comments on: (1) Whether the proposed Office of Management and Budget collection of information is necessary (OMB) for review and comment. The Program Analyst Enterprise Records Service. for the proper performance of VBA’s PRA submission describes the nature of [FR Doc. 2010–27852 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] functions, including whether the the information collection and its BILLING CODE 8320–01–P information will have practical utility;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 68040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

(2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of the collection, and allow 60 days for public received a specially adapted housing burden of the proposed collection of comment in response to the notice. This grant from VA. information; (3) ways to enhance the notice solicits comments for information Affected Public: Individuals or quality, utility, and clarity of the needed to decline Veterans Mortgage households. information to be collected; and (4) Life Insurance. Estimated Annual Burden: 113 hours. ways to minimize the burden of the DATES: Written comments and Estimated Average Burden per collection of information on recommendations on the proposed Respondent: 15 minutes. Frequency of Response: On occasion. respondents, including through the use collection of information should be Estimated Number of Respondents: of automated collection techniques or received on or before January 3, 2011. 450. the use of other forms of information ADDRESSES: Submit written comments technology. on the collection of information through Dated: October 29, 2010. Title: Matured Endowment Federal Docket Management System By direction of the Secretary. Notification, VA Form 29–5767. (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov; Denise McLamb, OMB Control Number: 2900–0159. or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. Type of Review: Extension of a Benefits Administration (20M35), [FR Doc. 2010–27820 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] currently approved collection. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 BILLING CODE 8320–01–P Abstract: VA Form 29–5767 is used to Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC notify the insured that his or her 20420 or e-mail endowment policy has matured. The [email protected]. Please refer to DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS form also requests that the insured elect ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0212’’ in any AFFAIRS whether he or she prefers to receive the correspondence. During the comment proceeds in monthly installment or in a [OMB Control No. 2900–0663 (Pay Now period, comments may be viewed online Enter Info Page)] combination of cash and monthly through FDMS. installment and to designate a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Information Collection beneficiary(ies) to receive the remaining Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or Activity: Comment Request proceeds. FAX (202) 275–5947. Affected Public: Individuals or AGENCY: Office of Management, households. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Department of Veterans Affairs. PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. Estimated Annual Burden: 2,867 ACTION: Notice. hours. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must Estimated Average Burden per obtain approval from the Office of SUMMARY: The Office of Management Respondent: 20 minutes. Management and Budget (OMB) for each (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs Frequency of Response: On occasion. collection of information they conduct (VA), is announcing an opportunity for Estimated Number of Respondents: or sponsor. This request for comment is public comment on the proposed 8,600. being made pursuant to Section collection of certain information by the 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Dated: October 29, 2010. With respect to the following Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are By direction of the Secretary. collection of information, VBA invites required to publish notice in the Denise McLamb, comments on: (1) Whether the proposed Federal Register concerning each Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. collection of information is necessary proposed collection of information, [FR Doc. 2010–27819 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] for the proper performance of VBA’s including each extension of a currently BILLING CODE 8320–01–P functions, including whether the approved collection, and allow 60 days information will have practical utility; for public comment in response to the (2) the accuracy of VBA’s estimate of the notice. This notice solicits comments on DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS burden of the proposed collection of information needed to electronically AFFAIRS information; (3) ways to enhance the submit payment for debts owed. [OMB Control No. 2900–0212] quality, utility, and clarity of the DATES: Written comments and information to be collected; and (4) recommendations on the proposed Proposed Information Collection ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information should be (Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance collection of information on received on or before January 3, 2011. respondents, including through the use Statement) Activity: Comment Request ADDRESSES: Submit written comments of automated collection techniques or on the collection of information through AGENCY: Veterans Benefits the use of other forms of information Federal Docket Management System Administration, Department of Veterans technology. Affairs. Title: Veterans Mortgage Life (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov or to David Sturm, VA Debt ACTION: Notice. Insurance Statement, VA Form 29–8636. OMB Control Number: 2900–0212. Management Center, Bishop Henry SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Type of Review: Extension of a Whipple Federal Building, P.O. Box Administration (VBA), Department of currently approved collection. 11930, St. Paul, MN 55111–0930 or Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an Abstract: Veterans complete VA Form e-mail to: [email protected]. Please opportunity for public comment on the 29–8636 to decline Veterans Mortgage refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0663’’ proposed collection of certain Life Insurance (VMLI) or to provide in any correspondence. During the information by the agency. Under the information upon which the insurance comment period, comments may be Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of premium can be based. VMIL provides viewed online through FDMS. 1995, Federal agencies are required to financial protection to cover eligible FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: publish notice in the Federal Register veterans’ outstanding home mortgage in David Sturm at (612) 970–5702 or FAX concerning each proposed collection of the event of his or her death. VMIL is (612) 970–5687. information, including each proposed available only to disabled veterans, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the extension of a currently approved who, because of their disability, have PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68041

3501–3521), Federal agencies must collection of information on claimant will receive a confirmation obtain approval from the Office of respondents, including through the use acknowledging the success or failure of Management and Budget (OMB) for each of automated collection techniques or the transaction. collection of information they conduct the use of other forms of information Affected Public: Individuals or or sponsor. This request for comment is technology. households. being made pursuant to Section Title: Pay Now Enter Info Page. Estimated Annual Burden: 11,667 OMB Control Number: 2900–0663. 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. hours. With respect to the following Type of Review: Extension of a collection of information, OM invites currently approved collection. Estimated Average Burden per comments on: (1) Whether the proposed Abstract: Claimants who participated Respondent: 10 minutes. collection of information is necessary in VA’s benefit programs and owe debts Frequency of Response: Daily. for the proper performance of OM’s to VA can voluntaril make online Estimated Number of Respondents: functions, including whether the payments through VA’s Pay Now Enter 70,000. information will have practical utility; Info Page Web site. Data entered on the Dated: October 29, 2010. (2) the accuracy of OM’s estimate of the Pay Now Enter Info Page is redirected to burden of the proposed collection of the Department of Treasury’s Pay.gov By direction of the Secretary. information; (3) ways to enhance the Web site allowing claimants to make Denise McLamb, quality, utility, and clarity of the payments with credit or debit cards, or Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. information to be collected; and (4) directly from their bank account. At the [FR Doc. 2010–27821 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] ways to minimize the burden of the conclusion of the transaction, the BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Thursday, November 4, 2010

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 80 Regulation To Mitigate the Misfueling of Vehicles and Engines With Gasoline Containing Greater Than Ten Volume Percent Ethanol and Modifications to the Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Programs; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the information collection provisions made available on the Internet. If you AGENCY are best assured of full consideration if submit an electronic comment, EPA the Office of Management and Budget recommends that you include your 40 CFR Part 80 (OMB) receives a copy of your name and other contact information in comments on or before December 6, the body of your comment and with any [EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448; FRL–9215–4] 2010, thirty days after date of disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA RIN 2060–AQ17 publication in the Federal Register. cannot read your comment due to Hearing: We will hold a public technical difficulties and cannot contact Regulation To Mitigate the Misfueling hearing on November 16, 2010 at the you for clarification, EPA may not be of Vehicles and Engines With Gasoline Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel in able to consider your comment. Containing Greater Than Ten Volume Chicago, IL. The hearing will start at 10 Electronic files should avoid the use of Percent Ethanol and Modifications to a.m. local time and continue until special characters, any form of the Reformulated and Conventional everyone has had a chance to speak. If encryption, and be free of any defects or Gasoline Programs you want to testify at the hearing, notify viruses. For additional information the contact person listed under FOR about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA AGENCY: Environmental Protection FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by Agency (EPA). Docket Center homepage at http:// November 8, 2010. www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. ACTION: Proposed rule. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, For additional instructions on ‘‘ SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a regulatory identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– submitting comments, go to What program to help mitigate the potential OAR–2010–0448, by one of the Should I Consider as I Prepare My following methods: Comments for EPA?’’ in the for misfueling of certain engines, • vehicles and equipment with gasoline http://www.regulations.gov: Follow SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of containing greater than 10 volume the on-line instructions for submitting this document. percent (‘‘vol%’’) ethanol up to 15 vol% comments. Docket: All documents in the docket • E-mail: [email protected]. are listed in the http:// ethanol (E15). This proposal is in • conjunction with the Agency’s partial Fax: (202) 566–1741. www.regulations.gov index. Although • Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, waiver, pursuant to Clean Air Act listed in the index, some information is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– section 211(f)(4), which allows for the not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 0448, Environmental Protection Agency, introduction into commerce of gasoline- information whose disclosure is Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania ethanol blends containing up to 15 restricted by statute. Certain other Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. vol% ethanol for use in model year 2007 material, such as copyrighted material, Please include a total of two copies. and newer on-highway light-duty motor will be publicly available only in hard • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, vehicles. The E15 waiver is limited in copy. Publicly available docket Public Reading Room, EPA West scope to a portion of the light-duty fleet, materials are available either Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution and the proposed misfueling mitigation electronically in http:// Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. program will help avoid the misfueling www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Such deliveries are only accepted of all other engines, vehicles, and the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, during the Docket’s normal hours of equipment with unapproved fuels. This EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 operation, and special arrangements proposed rule would require all E15 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, should be made for deliveries of boxed gasoline fuel dispensers to have a label DC. The Public Reading Room is open information. if a retail station chooses to sell E15 and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday Instructions: Direct your comments to through Friday, excluding legal seeks comment on separate labeling Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– requirements for fuel blender pumps holidays. The telephone number for the 0448. EPA’s policy is that all comments Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and fuel pumps that dispense E85. received will be included in the public Similar to the prohibition in section and the telephone number for the Air docket without change and may be Docket is (202) 566–1742. 211(f)(1), the proposed rule would made available online at http:// prohibit the use of gasoline containing www.regulations.gov, including any FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia greater than 10 vol% ethanol in vehicles personal information provided, unless MacAllister, Office of Transportation and engines not covered by the partial the comment includes information and Air Quality, Assessment and waiver for E15. In addition, the claimed to be Confidential Business Standards Division, Environmental proposed rule would require product Information (CBI) or other information Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood transfer documents specifying ethanol whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone content and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Do not submit information that you number: 734–214–4131; Fax number: to accompany the transfer of gasoline consider to be CBI or otherwise 734–214–4816; E-mail address: blended with ethanol and a national protected through http:// [email protected], or survey of retail stations to ensure www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The Assessment and Standards Division compliance with the these http://www.regulations.gov Web site is Hotline; telephone number (734) 214– requirements. The proposed rule would an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 4636; E-mail address [email protected]. also modify the Reformulated Gasoline means EPA will not know your identity SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (‘‘RFG’’) program by updating the or contact information unless you Does This Action Apply to Me? Complex Model to allow fuel provide it in the body of your comment. manufacturers to certify batches of If you send an e-mail comment directly Entities potentially affected by this gasoline containing up to 15 vol% to EPA without going through http:// action include those involved with the ethanol. www.regulations.gov your e-mail production, importation, distribution, DATES: Comments must be received on address will be automatically captured marketing, or retailing of diesel fuel and or before January 3, 2011. Under the and included as part of the comment production of gasoline. Categories and Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on that is placed in the public docket and entities affected by this action include:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68045

2 1 SIC Category NAICS codes codes Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry ...... 324110 2911 Petroleum refineries. Industry ...... 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing. Industry ...... 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. Industry ...... 424720 5172 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers. Industry ...... 454319 5989 Other fuel dealers. Industry ...... 447190 5541 Gasoline service stations. Marine service stations. Truck stops.

This table is not intended to be your estimate in sufficient detail to b. Affirmative Defenses for Liable Parties exhaustive, but rather provides a guide allow for it to be reproduced. c. Penalties for Violations for readers regarding entities likely to be • Provide specific examples to IV. Other Measures to Ensure Compliance affected by this action; however, other illustrate your concerns, and suggest A. The 1.0 psi RVP Waiver for E10 Blends 1. National RVP Survey types of entities not listed in the table alternatives. • 2. RVP and E15 Underground Storage Tank could also be affected. To determine Explain your views as clearly as Transition whether your entity is affected by this possible, avoiding the use of profanity B. Credit for RFG Downstream Oxygenate action, you should examine the or personal threats. Blending applicability criteria of Parts 79 and 80 • Make sure to submit your V. Modification of the Complex Model of title 40 of the Code of Federal comments by the comment period A. Background of RFG Requirements Regulations. If you have any question deadline identified. B. The Complex Model regarding applicability of this action to C. Docket Copying Costs. You may be VI. Why are we proposing misfueling charged a reasonable fee for mitigation measures? a particular entity, consult the person in A. History of Ethanol Use in the U.S. the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION photocopying docket materials, as B. Chemical and Physical Differences CONTACT section. provided by 40 CFR Part 2. between Ethanol and Gasoline Outline of This Preamble 1. Impact on the A/F Ratio—Combustion What should I consider as I prepare my Enleanment comments for EPA? I. Overview 2. Polarity and affinity for water A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this II. Background 3. Material Compatibility information to EPA through http:// A. Statutory Authority 4. Corrosion www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly B. E15 Waiver Request 5. Solvency C. Reasons for the Proposed Actions in 6. Volatility mark the information that you claim to This Rulemaking C. Model Year 2000 and Older Light-Duty be CBI. For CBI information on a disk D. Federalism Implications Motor Vehicles or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark III. Misfueling Mitigation Measures 1. Enleanment the outside of the disk or CD ROM as A. Labeling Requirements 2. Material Compatibility CBI and then identify electronically 1. E15 Labels 3. Motor Vehicle Population and within the disk or CD ROM the specific a. Information Component Anticipated Emissions Impact information that is claimed as CBI. In b. Legal Approval Component D. Heavy-duty Gasoline Engines and addition to one complete version of the c. Technical Warning Component Vehicles comment that includes information d. Legal Warning Component E. Motorcycles e. E15 Label Proposal F. Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 2. Additional Fuel Pump Labeling Equipment (Nonroad Products) that does not contain the information Requirements 1. Introduction claimed as CBI must be submitted for 3. Stakeholder Labeling Suggestions 2. Enleanment inclusion in the public docket. 4. FTC Labeling Proposal 3. Material Compatibility and Corrosion Information marked as CBI will not be 5. Labeling Requirements and Liability for 4. Phase Separation and Solvency/ disclosed except in accordance with Misfueling Detergency procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. B. Product Transfer Document G. Model Year 2007 and Newer Light-duty B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. Requirements Motor Vehicles When submitting comments, remember 1. PTD Requirements Downstream of the H. Model Year 2001–2006 Motor Vehicles to: Point of Ethanol Addition I. Emissions Impact Summary and 2. PTD Requirements Up to and Including • Identify the rulemaking by docket Conclusions the Point of Ethanol Addition VII. What is our legal authority for proposing number and other identifying 3. General PTD Requirements these misfueling mitigation measures? information (subject heading, Federal C. Retail Fuel Dispenser Label and Fuel A. Health and Welfare Concerns of Air Register date and page number). Ethanol Content Survey Pollution Caused by E15 • Follow directions—The agency may D. Program Outreach B. Impact of E15 Emission Products on ask you to respond to specific questions E. What Other Means of Mitigating Emission Control Systems or organize comments by referencing a Misfueling Were Considered? C. Effect of Misfueling Mitigation Measures Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part F. Cost of Compliance on the Use of Other Fuels or Fuel or section number. 1. Labeling Costs Additives • Explain why you agree or disagree; 2. PTD Costs VIII. Public Participation suggest alternatives and substitute 3. Survey Costs A. How Do I Submit Comments? 4. Avoided Motor Vehicle and Nonroad B. How Should I Submit CBI to the language for your requested changes. • Product Repair Costs Agency? Describe any assumptions and G. Compliance and Enforcement C. Will There Be a Public Hearing? provide any technical information and/ 1. What are the Prohibited Acts? D. Comment Period or data that you used. 2. What are the Proposed Liability and E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My • If you estimate potential costs or Penalty Provisions for Noncompliance? Comments for EPA? burdens, explain how you arrived at a. Presumptive Liability IX. Administrative Requirements

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory motorcycles,2 and nonroad engines, requiring the labeling of non-E15 Planning and Review vehicles, and equipment.3 This pumps. The Agency has used such B. Paperwork Reduction Act prohibition is similar in nature to the misfueling mitigation strategies to C. Regulatory Flexibility Act prohibition on producers of fuels and implement several fuel programs over D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act fuel additives under section 211(f)(1); the past thirty years, including the E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) F. Executive Order 13175 however, the prohibition in section unleaded gasoline program, the RFG G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 211(f)(1) only applies to these upstream program, and the diesel sulfur program. Children from Environmental Health parties. The prohibitions proposed The Agency believes that the misfueling Risks and Safety Risks today would apply at the retail level as mitigation measures proposed in this H. Executive Order 13211: Actions well as upstream. The conditions on the rulemaking, coupled with the E15 Concerning Regulations That partial waiver and the regulations waiver and a substantial consumer Significantly Affect Energy Supply, proposed today are similar in nature education and outreach effort by Distribution, or Use and have a common goal—ensuring that industry, can be an effective strategy to I. National Technology Transfer and E15 is used in appropriate motor help reduce misfueling and the Advancement Act vehicles covered by the partial waiver, associated emissions impacts while J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in and is not used in other motor vehicles enabling the use of E15 in appropriate Minority Populations and Low-Income and engines. Since the Agency is vehicles. Populations deferring a decision for MY2001–2006 The misfueling mitigation program light-duty motor vehicles, we are not proposed today generally mirrors the I. Overview proposing a prohibition with respect to misfueling conditions in today’s partial In today’s action, the U.S. the fuel used in these motor vehicles at waiver decision. While the waiver Environmental Protection Agency (EPA this time. DOE testing of MY2001–2006 provides an opportunity for a fuel or or the Agency) is proposing regulations light-duty motor vehicles is ongoing and fuel additive manufacturer to meet the to mitigate the potential for misfueling EPA expects to make a waiver conditions, the Agency believes that the of vehicles and engines with gasoline determination for these vehicles shortly proposed safeguards would provide the containing up to 15 vol% ethanol after the results of the DOE testing are most practical method of addressing the (E15).1 These regulations are being available. If EPA does not grant an E15 purposes and satisfying the conditions proposed in conjunction with today’s waiver for MY2001–2006 light-duty of today’s partial waiver decision. action by EPA granting of a partial motor vehicles, then we would expect to These misfueling mitigation waiver for ethanol blends up to 15 vol% include the same prohibitions for these regulations are proposed under CAA ethanol under section 211(f)(4) of the MY motor vehicles in the final section 211(c), based on the projected Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). This rulemaking. emission increases that would be partial waiver will allow the Second, we are proposing labeling avoided by deterring the use of E15 in introduction into commerce of E15 for requirements for fuel pumps that older motor vehicles, heavy-duty use in 2007 model year (MY) and newer dispense E15 to effectively inform gasoline engines and vehicles, light-duty motor vehicles. In partially consumers regarding the appropriate motorcycles and nonroad products. granting the E15 waiver, EPA imposed fuel to be used in vehicles and engines. Engineering judgment supported by test a number of conditions on the refiners Third, EPA proposes that product data, where available, forms the basis and renewable fuel producers subject to transfer documents (PTDs) from for our technical review and the waiver. These conditions are refiners, gasoline terminals, and conclusions. Our engineering designed to help ensure that E15 is oxygenate blenders specify the ethanol assessment described in Section VI introduced into commerce for use in content or approved level of ethanol identifies a number of emissions related concerns with the long-term use of E15 MY2007 and newer light-duty motor addition, of the fuel being sold to retail in MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles and flexible-fueled vehicles, stations or wholesale purchaser- vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and not for use in any other vehicles or consumer to ensure that retail stations and vehicles, motorcycles, and nonroad engines. Some of the regulatory and wholesale purchaser-consumers products. For motor vehicles these provisions proposed today parallel know the level of ethanol content they concerns include the potential for those conditions and are expected to be are buying so that, in turn, the retail catalyst deterioration or catalyst failure a more efficient way to help ensure that pumps can be properly labeled. Fourth, EPA proposes a national survey as well as material compatibility issues the conditions of the E15 partial waiver requirement on ethanol producers and that could lead to extremely elevated decision are met and to minimize in-use the blenders of E15 (e.g., refiners, exhaust and evaporative emissions. For emissions increases that might result gasoline terminals, oxygenate blenders) nonroad products and for motorcycles from misfueling vehicles and engines to ensure that retail station pumps are the misfueling concerns include not with E15. The proposed safeguards in fact being labeled properly. EPA is only the potential for elevated exhaust would also promote the successful seeking comment on including an RVP and evaporative emissions but also the introduction of E15 into commerce. component to this national E15 labeling potential for engine failure from We are proposing four requirements survey to help ensure that summertime overheating. While it is not possible to as part of our misfueling mitigation RVP requirements are being met quantify precisely the frequency at regulations. The first requirement, throughout the gasoline distribution which motor vehicles and nonroad consistent with the partial waiver being chain. To avoid confusion for products might experience these granted today, is a prohibition against consumers when pumps are not labeled, problems with the use of E15, we using E15 in MY2000 and older motor the Agency is also seeking comment on believe that emissions related problems vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines could potentially occur with enough and vehicles, on and off-highway 2 For purposes of this preamble on and off- frequency that the resulting emission highway motorcycles are referred to collectively as benefits from avoiding misfueling 1 For purposes of this preamble, E15 refers to ‘‘motorcycles.’’ would outweigh the relatively low cost gasoline-ethanol blended fuels that contain greater 3 For purposes of this preamble, nonroad engines, than 10 vol% and no more than 15 vol% ethanol vehicles, and equipment are referred to as ‘‘nonroad imposed by the proposed regulations. content. products.’’ This would justify the proposed rule,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68047

even if a very low percentage of vehicle motor vehicles (e.g., enhanced on PTDs from fuel refineries to and engines experiences problems. evaporative emission standards, SFTP, oxygenate blenders for conventional As described below in Section VI and CAP2000). On the other hand, they were gasoline to ensure that EPA summertime in the E15 partial waiver decision not all required to demonstrate RVP requirements are met. This is document,4 our assessment indicates evaporative emission system durability necessary because the waiver that manufacturers have designed at on E10 or to upgrade their catalyst and announced today is for blends that meet least MY2007 and newer light-duty emission control systems to the extent the summertime gasoline volatility motor vehicles to be durable for use on needed to comply with the Tier 2 standards for conventional gasoline.7 In gasoline blends up to E15. This standards. Furthermore, currently order to introduce a fuel that meets both conclusion is primarily based on the available test data on these model year the Federal summertime RVP standards recently completed catalyst durability vehicles is much more limited. DOE is and contains between 10 and 15 vol% test program conducted by the in the process of developing relevant ethanol, fuel refiners would have to Department of Energy (DOE) wherein data for these model year vehicles. create a fuel or blendstock that has they tested 19 vehicle models Specifically, DOE is conducting catalyst approximately 1.0 psi lower RVP than a representative of the Tier 2 motor durability testing on six motor vehicle fuel or blendstock intended for E10 due vehicle fleet out to their full useful life. models certified to NLEV standards and to the interaction between gasoline The study found that Tier 2 motor two motor vehicles certified to Tier 1 volatility and ethanol when blended. vehicles continued to meet their standards scheduled to be completed in Oxygenate blenders would need to emissions standards after operating on November, 2010. Additionally, a study know the RVP of a blendstock or have E15 for full useful life mileage of in-use motor vehicles by Rochester the intended ethanol content of a accumulation. Additionally, according Institute of Technology on E20 6 blendstock be specified on the PTD to to our analysis of the DOE test data, for suggests such motor vehicles may ensure that they know the correct Tier 2 motor vehicles we found no operate acceptably on E20—and by amount of ethanol that should be statistically significant increases in the interpolation E15. However, the mileage blended into a fuel. The Agency is not emissions of regulated pollutants for accumulation of RIT test vehicles is proposing to change RFG PTD motor vehicles operating on E15, and no limited and the study is still ongoing requirements found at 40 CFR 80.77 apparent material compatibility issues, until November 2010. This additional since RVP is carefully controlled when compared to vehicles that were information, as well as information throughout the distribution chain in 5 operated on E0. These results confirm gathered through comment on this order to comply with summertime RFG our engineering assessment that proposal and any final decision on a VOC emissions performance standards. MY2007 and newer motor vehicle’s section 211(f) waiver for MY2001–2006 emissions should be less sensitive to the light-duty motor vehicles, will be II. Background increased ethanol content in E15. This considered in the decisions made for the A. Statutory Authority engineering assessment is based on the final rule. advances in motor vehicle materials and In addition to misfueling mitigation CAA section 211(f)(1) makes it technology in response to in-use measures, today’s action also proposes unlawful for any manufacturer of any experience with E10 and the slight modifications to the Reformulated fuel or fuel additive to first introduce requirement that motor vehicles comply Gasoline and Antidumping fuels into commerce, or to increase the with a series of important new EPA programs to open the way for refiners concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel emission requirements over the years, and importers to produce and certify additive for use in motor vehicles e.g., enhanced evaporative emission gasoline containing up to 15 vol% manufactured after model year 1974 standards and E10 durability testing, ethanol. To measure compliance with unless it is substantially similar to any supplemental FTP emission standards, the RFG and anti-dumping standards, fuel or fuel additive utilized in the CAP2000 in-use durability the emissions performance of gasoline is certification of any model year 1975, or requirements, and the Tier 2 motor calculated using a model, called the subsequent model year, vehicle or vehicle standards themselves. Complex Model, which predicts the engine under section 206 of the Act. For MY2001–2006 light-duty motor emissions of each regulated pollutant Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides vehicles, it is currently less clear based on the measured values of certain that upon application by any fuel or fuel whether they could experience gasoline properties. For gasoline to be additive manufacturer, the significant emission increases when sold in the U.S., it must comply with Administrator may waive the fueled on E15 like MY2000 and older the RFG and Antidumping standards prohibition of section 211(f)(1). A motor vehicles, or continue to function and refiners are required to certify that waiver may be granted if the properly like the newer 2007 and newer their fuel meets the standards by using Administrator determines that the motor vehicles. On the one hand we the Complex Model. Currently, the applicant has established that the fuel or believe that many of the same elements equations in the model are limited to an fuel additive, and the emission products for ethanol compatibility of MY2007 oxygen content of no more than 4.0% by of such fuel or fuel additive, will not and newer light-duty motor vehicles weight in gasoline, which is the cause or contribute to a failure of any also apply to MY2001–2006 light-duty maximum possible amount of oxygen in emission control device or system (over E10. EPA is proposing to modify the the useful life of the motor vehicle, 4 See Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean Air Complex Model to allow fuel motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth manufacturers to certify batches of E15 nonroad vehicle in which such device Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the fuel. or system is used) to achieve Administrator elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Finally, EPA proposes to require that compliance with the emission standards Register. Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) be identified to which the vehicle or engine has been 5 See Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean Air certified. In other words, the Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth 6 The effect of E20 ethanol fuel on vehicle Administrator may grant a waiver for an Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content emissions, B Hilton and B Duddy, Center for of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the Integrated Manufacturing Studies, Rochester Administrator elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Institute of Technology, June 26, 2009. See Docket 7 See section IV.A. for more information on the Register. ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448. 1.0 psi RVP waiver.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

otherwise prohibited fuel or fuel ethanol.9 On April 21, 2009, EPA take various actions to control the additive if the applicant can published notice of the receipt of the distribution and use of their product so demonstrate that the fuel or fuel application, and, as required by CAA that E15 is only used in approved motor additive will not cause or contribute to section 211(f)(4) of the Act, EPA vehicles. The partial waiver imposes engines, vehicles or equipment failing to requested public comment on all different conditions on the different meet their emissions standards over aspects of the waiver application, to parties. Ethanol blenders, fuel their useful life. assist the Administrator in determining manufacturers, and ethanol producers that introduce E15 into commerce are EPA previously issued a whether the statutory basis for granting the waiver request for ethanol-gasoline all responsible for making sure that ‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule blends containing up to 15 vol% appropriate labeling occurs on fuel for unleaded gasoline which allows ethanol had been met. (See 74 FR pumps to mitigate potential misfueling. oxygen content up to 2.7% by weight for 18228). However, this condition, in particular, certain ethers and alcohols.8 E10 In a separate action today, EPA may be difficult for these parties to contains approximately 3.5% oxygen by waived the prohibition in CAA section satisfy given their limited control over weight, which means E10 is not 211(f)(1) to allow introduction into actions taken at retail, which, as ‘‘substantially similar’’ to certification commerce of E15 for use in MY2007 and discussed below, prompted today’s fuel under the current interpretation. As newer light-duty motor vehicles, proposal for fuel pump labels. All three explained at 44 FR 20777 (April 6, including passenger cars, light-duty parties are also responsible for 1979), E10 received a waiver of the trucks and medium duty passenger conducting fuel pump labeling surveys substantially similar prohibition by vehicles (hereafter light-duty motor to ensure that pumps are properly operation of law since EPA did not grant vehicles). EPA is deferring a decision labeled and that the correct ethanol or deny a waiver request for a fuel concerning MY2001–2006 light-duty blends are loaded into the appropriate containing 90% unleaded gasoline and motor vehicles, and has denied the tanks at retail stations. Ethanol blenders 10% ethyl alcohol within 180 days of waiver for all other motor vehicles.10 and fuel manufacturers must also use receiving that request. This waiver by EPA’s partial waiver decision is based PTDs to properly document information operation of law was based on the then on a determination that E15 will not regarding the ethanol blends to help current terms of CAA section 211(f)(4), cause or contribute to a failure of ensure proper blending and which has subsequently been amended. MY2007 and newer light-duty motor distribution. Section 211(c)(1) of the Act allows the vehicles to achieve compliance with the In June 2010 EPA received a request Administrator, by regulation, to ‘‘control emissions standards to which they were from ADM to consider, within the or prohibit the manufacture, certified under section 206 of the CAA context of the E15 waiver application, a introduction into commerce, offering for over their useful lives. EPA is still waiver for E12 for all motor vehicles.11 sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive evaluating the effect of E15 on MY2001– As discussed in the E15 waiver decision for use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle 2006 light-duty motor vehicles to document, EPA concluded that there engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad determine whether a waiver of CAA was insufficient basis to support such a vehicle (A) if, in the judgment of the section 211(f)(1) is appropriate for use of waiver for motor vehicles or nonroad Administrator, any fuel or fuel additive E15 in those motor vehicles. EPA also products beyond the MY2007 and or any emission product of such fuel or decided that it could not make such a newer model year light-duty motor fuel additive causes, or contributes, to determination and therefore was vehicles for which the E15 waiver was air pollution or water pollution denying the waiver for all other motor being granted. (including any degradation in the vehicles, including MY2000 and older C. Reasons for the Proposed Actions in quality of groundwater) that may light-duty motor vehicles. EPA requests This Rulemaking reasonably be anticipated to endanger comment and additional information the public health or welfare, or (B) if regarding the use of E15 in MY 2000 The proposed rules would directly emission products of such fuel or fuel and older motor vehicles. prohibit or control the distribution and additive will impair to a significant EPA issued the partial waiver with use of E15. The rules would apply to degree the performance of any emission several conditions, some of which parties such as retail stations that are control device or system which is in would be fulfilled by the safeguards not directly subject to the conditions on general use, or which the Administrator being proposed today. The conditions the waiver. Collectively, these finds has been developed to a point apply to the upstream parties subject to provisions would mitigate misfueling where in a reasonable time it would be the waiver (refiners, producers of and maximize the likelihood that E15 is in general use were such regulation to ethanol and oxygenate blenders that only used in approved motor vehicles. be promulgated.’’ Today’s proposed introduce E15 into commerce), and are This would also promote the successful misfueling regulations are based on this designed to ensure that when E15 is introduction of E15 into commerce. The authority in section 211(c)(1), as well as introduced into commerce, it will only specific provisions are discussed in our recordkeeping and information be used in the appropriate light-duty detail in Sections III–V. collection authority under sections 208 motor vehicles. Some of the conditions In this action, the Agency is and 114. call for the ethanol blenders, fuel proposing to use its authority to help manufacturers, and fuel additive minimize the potential for emissions B. E15 Waiver Request manufacturers (ethanol producers) to increases associated with misfueling with E15. Importantly, the proposed On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy and 9 Since E15 has greater than 2.7 wt% oxygen safeguards would also assist the ethanol 54 ethanol manufacturers submitted an content, E15 needs a waiver under CAA section producers and blenders in carrying out application to EPA for a waiver under 211(f)(4). the conditions of the waiver. EPA section 211(f)(4) of the CAA. This 10 See Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean realizes that ethanol blenders, fuel application sought a waiver for ethanol- Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth manufacturers, and ethanol producers gasoline blends of up to 15 vol% Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 11 Woertz, P.A. Letter to Lisa P. Jackson. 7 June 8 See 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991). Register. 2010. See Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68049

may have difficulty satisfying the component of the fuel or fuel additive significantly impair emission controls or conditions outlined in the E15 partial under section 211(c)(1). This the emission products from that fuel waiver decision, particularly the fuel prohibition applies to all States except will cause or contribute to air pollution pump labeling requirements. Most retail California, as provided in section that we reasonably anticipate may stations are independently owned and 211(c)(4)(B). Also, section 211(c)(4)(A) endanger public health or welfare. As operated, which may make it difficult applies only to controls or prohibitions more fully discussed in Section VI, we for the ethanol blenders, fuel respecting any characteristics or are proposing to prohibit use of E15 in manufacturers, and ethanol producers to components of fuels or fuel additives for MY2000 and older light-duty motor ensure that labels are properly placed motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, vehicles, and in all heavy-duty gasoline on fuel pumps dispensing E15. Under that is, highway vehicles. Therefore, a engines and vehicles, motorcycles and CAA section 211(f)(4), EPA is limited in State control or prohibition would be nonroad products based on the what kind of conditions it can place on preempted under section 211(c)(4)(A), projected increased emissions that a waiver decision and on whom those only if it is ‘‘for the purposes of motor would occur from using E15 in those conditions may be placed. For example, vehicle emission control.’’ Further, even motor vehicles and nonroad products. EPA placed the partial waiver if a State rule is established for purposes We are also proposing to prohibit conditions on the ethanol blenders, fuel of motor vehicle emission control, it gasoline retail stations and wholesale manufacturers, and ethanol producers, will not be preempted under section purchaser-consumer facilities from the parties subject to the prohibition in 211(c)(4)(A) unless it is for the same selling E15 for use in these products if section 211(f)(1), and not on the retail ‘‘characteristic or component of a fuel or pumps at those locations are not stations. This makes it difficult to fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor properly labeled. Since the Agency is ensure effective or complete pump vehicle engine’’ for which EPA has deferring a decision for MY2001–2006 labeling and misfueling mitigation. prescribed a control or prohibition light-duty motor vehicles, we are not Without Agency action that requires the under section 211(c)(1)(A). Today’s proposing a prohibition for fuel used in provisions proposed in today’s action proposes a rule that would limit these motor vehicles at this time. DOE rulemaking (i.e. fuel pump labeling, the ethanol content in fuel used in testing of MY2001–2006 light-duty PTDs, and a national survey), the certain vehicles and engines as well as motor vehicles is ongoing and EPA conditions contained in the E15 partial proposes misfueling mitigation expects to make a waiver determination waiver decision would likely make the measures to effectuate that limitation. for these vehicles shortly after the distribution of E15 impracticable. The Agency is not aware of any State results of the DOE testing are available. However, under CAA section 211(c), rules or laws that would be preempted If EPA does not grant an E15 waiver for EPA has the authority to adopt by today’s proposed rule if adopted. MY2001–2006 light-duty motor appropriate controls or prohibitions on States have not controlled ethanol vehicles, then we would expect to the distribution and sale of fuels and volumes in gasoline for purposes of include the same prohibitions for these fuel additives to avoid emissions motor vehicle emission control. Also, MY motor vehicles in the final increases. EPA’s proposed use of this our rule would not require States to rulemaking .12 authority would also assist the ethanol change their existing labels. The rule as EPA is proposing a misfueling blenders, fuel manufacturers, and proposed would impose no substantial mitigation strategy to effectuate those ethanol producers in carrying out the direct costs, nor would it have any proposed prohibitions and to more substantial direct effects on State or conditions of the partial waiver so the generally limit the use of E15 to local governments. EPA requests conditions on the E15 partial waiver are MY2007 and newer light-duty motor comments on the issue of preemption of properly implemented. Today’s vehicles as approved today in the E15 rulemaking also provides EPA with State fuel programs. Further, EPA consulted with State partial waiver decision. We believe that additional tools for regulatory oversight there are four important components to of the ethanol blenders, fuel and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action to an effective misfueling mitigation manufacturers, and ethanol producers strategy for reducing the potential for introducing E15 into commerce. permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA misfueling with E15. First, effective D. Federalism Implications met with members of the National labeling is a key factor. Labeling is As mentioned in Section II.A, the Association of Clean Air Agencies needed to inform consumers of the proposed prohibition regarding use of (NACAA) to discuss the nature of potential impacts of using E15 in E15 in MY2000 and older vehicles, today’s proposed rule. Additionally, we vehicles and engines not approved for heavy-duty gasoline engines and provided State and local governments its use, to mitigate the potential for vehicles, motorcycles, and nonroad an opportunity to provide comment on intentional and unintentional engines, vehicles, and equipment is the implementation of misfueling misfueling of these vehicles and based on the authority in section mitigation measures for a partial E15 engines. Labeling is also done at the 211(c)(1) of the Act, as well as our waiver in both the RFS2 NPRM (see 74 point of sale where the consumer most recordkeeping and information FR 25016) and the E15 waiver request likely will be choosing which fuel to collection authority under sections 208 notice (see 74 FR 18228). We received use. Second, retail stations and and 114. Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the comments from only one State on this wholesale purchaser-consumers need CAA provides that no State or political issue in the RFS2 NPRM, and it assurance regarding the ethanol content subdivision thereof may prescribe or supported efforts for properly labeling of the fuel that they purchase so they attempt to enforce ‘‘for purposes of fuel pumps containing gasoline-ethanol can direct the fuel to the appropriate motor vehicle emission control’’ any blends. storage tank and properly label their control or prohibition ‘‘respecting any fuel pumps. The use of proper characteristic or component of a fuel or III. Misfueling Mitigation Measures fuel additive’’ in a motor vehicle or As explained above, CAA section 12 Even though we are not proposing an actual prohibition for motor vehicles MY2001–2006, it is motor vehicle engine if EPA has 211(c) grants the Agency authority to still unlawful to use E15 in these motor vehicles prescribed a control or prohibition control or prohibit the distribution of a until an E15 waiver is granted for these motor applicable to such characteristic or fuel or fuel additive when it will vehicles.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

documentation in the form of PTDs has gasoline-ethanol blend that contains partial waiver, the Agency proposes that proven to be an effective means of both greater than 10 vol% ethanol but not this portion of the label read as follows: ensuring that retail stations know what more than 15 vol% ethanol. Retailers Use only in: fuel they are purchasing and as a and wholesale purchaser-consumers 2007 and newer gasoline cars possible defense for retail stations in who choose to sell E15 would be 2007 and newer light-duty trucks cases of liability in the event of a required to label pumps dispensing E15, Flex-fuel vehicles. violation of EPA standards. Third, clearly indicating that the fuel should As discussed elsewhere in today’s national labeling and fuel sampling not be used in MY2000 and older motor proposal, if EPA decides to include surveys are necessary to ensure that vehicles, motorcycles, heavy-duty more model years in a subsequent retail stations are complying with gasoline engines and vehicles, or any waiver decision based on the findings of labeling requirements, ethanol blenders nonroad products. However, EPA also the testing program, then the model year are not blending more than the stated proposes that the label would be distinction on the label would also need amount of ethanol on PTDs, and modified if the E15 waiver is extended to be adjusted accordingly. We assuring downstream compliance for to earlier model year vehicles and/or anticipate this will occur before this fuel refiners. The Agency has used this nonroad products. rulemaking is finalized, and we will general strategy to implement several Based on the Agency’s experience make that adjustment in the final rule. fuel programs over the past thirty years, with fuel pump labeling for Ultra-Low Therefore, the proposed language could including the unleaded gasoline Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and Low Sulfur read as follows: program, the RFG program, and the Diesel (LSD) (see 40 CFR 80.570), there diesel sulfur program. EPA solicits are four important elements to an Use only in: comments on all of these provisions as effective label for misfueling. The 2001 and newer gasoline cars more fully described below. Agency proposes that the language of 2001 and newer light-duty trucks Flex-fuel vehicles. The fourth component of an effective the E15 label would have four misfueling mitigation strategy is components: (1) An information c. Technical Warning Component effective public outreach and consumer component; (2) a legal approval The third component of the label education. Outreach to consumers and component; (3) a technical warning stakeholders is critical to mitigate language would alert consumers that component; and (4) a legal warning use of E15 in other engines, vehicles, misfueling incidents that can result in component. Together, these four increased emissions and vehicle or and equipment might cause damage to components highlight the critical these products. Our experience with engine damage. Consumers will need to information necessary to inform be engaged through a variety of media past labeling provisions supports the consumers about the impacts of using need for both the legal and technical to ensure that accurate information is E15. conveyed to the owners and operators of warning so that consumers are informed vehicles and engines. a. Information Component of the reason for the prohibition. As The misfueling mitigation program The first component informs discussed more fully in Section VI, it proposed today generally mirrors the consumers of the maximum ethanol appears that use of E15 in these misfueling conditions in today’s partial content the fuel may contain. For E15, particular products may not only lead to waiver decision. While the waiver the Agency proposes that the increased emissions but also has the provides an opportunity for a fuel or information component of the label potential, even if limited in nature, to fuel additive manufacturer to meet the should contain two aspects, both an lead to damage of motor vehicle and conditions, the Agency believes that the acronym for the fuel (in this case E15) nonroad product components. Without proposed the measures would provide and a description of what the acronym this component to the label, consumers the most practical method of meeting means (in this case informing may more likely be tempted to the purposes of and satisfying the consumers that the fuel may consist of misfuel—particularly if the price in the conditions of today’s partial waiver a range of ethanol up to a maximum of marketplace for E15 is lower than E10. decision. 15 vol% ethanol by volume). We Therefore, EPA proposes the following ‘‘ propose that this component of the label language: This fuel might damage other A. Labeling Requirements ’’ read: vehicles or engines. Today’s rule proposes to require that d. Legal Warning Component retailers and wholesale purchaser- This fuel contains 15% ethanol maximum consumers who choose to sell or We propose that this label be applied to The fourth component of the label dispense E15 must label any dispensers any fuel dispenser with greater than would inform consumers that using E15 of this gasoline-ethanol blend. We are 10% ethanol but not more than 15 vol% in a vehicle or engine not approved for also seeking comment on requiring that ethanol. Thus, in the case of any mid- E15 use violates Federal law. This is dispensers of other gasoline-ethanol grade fuel that might be blended from similar to the approach used to mitigate blends that contain 10 vol% ethanol or E10 and E15, it would also be required the use of LSD in 2007 and newer on- less to be labeled at such time as a retail to have the E15 label. highway diesel engines. Based on that station chooses to dispense E15 to help experience, EPA believes that explicitly b. Legal Approval Component alleviate any confusion to consumers. notifying consumers that E15 is Additionally, we seek comment on The second component of the label prohibited by Federal law for use in requiring labels for E85 pumps and language would include information MY2000 and older motor vehicles, blender pumps. that informs consumers of what vehicles heavy-duty gasoline engines and and engines are approved to use E15, vehicles, on and off-highway 1. E15 Labels mirroring EPA’s decisions taken in the motorcycles, and all nonroad products We are proposing requirements that waiver context. Since EPA granted a will result in consumers being less gasoline pumps dispensing E15 be partial waiver of E15 limiting its legal likely to misfuel. labeled. The label would have to use to MY2007 and later light-duty Based on the language currently used indicate that the fuel contains up to 15 motor vehicles, its use is only permitted on the LSD label (see 40 CFR 80.570), vol% ethanol—that is, the fuel is a in these motor vehicles. Based on the the Agency proposes that the label read

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68051

as follows: ‘‘Federal law prohibits its use label. This would draw consumer is also interested in whether using in other vehicles and engines.’’ attention to the label and help mitigate ‘‘STOP’’, with or without including a The Agency has traditionally had both intentional and unintentional depiction of a stop sign, would be an ‘‘WARNING’’ language appear before the misfueling. Therefore, we propose to appropriate way to draw consumers’ legal warning component to better draw have the word ‘‘CAUTION!’’ appear at attention to the label. We seek comment consumers’ attention to the prohibition the top of the label before the on whether there are other words that of using a fuel in certain vehicles and information component. The Agency would better convey the message to engines (e.g. LSD in 2007 and newer also considered the use of the word consumers. highway diesel vehicles). After ‘‘ATTENTION’’ instead of ‘‘WARNING’’ consultation with stakeholders, it was or ‘‘CAUTION.’’ We specifically seek e. E15 Label Proposal suggested that the Agency should both comment on using the term change ‘‘WARNING’’ to ‘‘CAUTION!’’ ‘‘CAUTION!’’ versus ‘‘WARNING’’ or Taken together, the Agency proposes and place this language at the top of the ‘‘ATTENTION’’. In addition, the Agency the following E15 label:

EPA seeks comment on all aspects of available to retail stations to use. Based (i.e. ‘‘E15’’), and the ethanol content (i.e., the label language. For example, we on this experience, we are proposing ‘‘15% Ethanol Maximum) shall be 1- seek comment on whether any more explicit specifications for the E15 inch wide and neon-orange in color, additional label language should be label, covering not only the content, but except that a rectangular white required or whether any language also the appearance of the E15 pump background large enough to encompass should be removed. In particular, we label. ‘‘CAUTION!’’ shall be superimposed on seek comment on ways to portray the In today’s rulemaking, we are this neon-orange background. While we information in ways that are the most proposing similar appearance and believe it is important to propose these concise and meaningful to consumers. placement requirements for the E15 specific label appearance requirements EPA proposes that the pump labels for labels that were required for the diesel to aid in consumer recognition and E15 be required to be placed on pumps sulfur program labels. We propose that avoid unnecessary burden on retailers that will dispense E15 prior to any the titles of the labels (e.g., E15) must be in developing their own designs, we commercial sale of E15. 24-point, white, bold Arial font, the also recognize that there is a great deal One issue that arose from the labeling ‘‘CAUTION!’’ text should also be red, of variation in the design of fuel pumps provisions of the diesel sulfur program uppercase 16-point bold type, the text in and dispensers throughout the nation. was that the diesel sulfur labeling the labels which describes the ethanol Consequently, we not only seek provisions were written in a way that content of the fuel must be 20-point comment on all visual aspects of our allowed flexibility in color and design, type and that all other required language proposed label, but also suggest that if causing retailers difficulty with coming in the labels must be 14-point black, changes are deemed necessary, up with a suitable design that satisfied Arial font. We propose that the word regulated and other interested parties EPA labeling requirements at the least ‘‘prohibits’’ be in 14 point, black, bold, work together to provide us with a possible cost. To help address this issue, italic, Arial font. All text should be consensus recommendation in their stakeholders met with EPA to discuss centered with the arrangement and comments, if possible. standardized label designs that would spacing of the text consistent with the In addition to content and both satisfy EPA diesel sulfur illustration. We further propose that the appearance, the placement of the label requirements and make it easier for label be 3.625’’ width by 3.125’’ height on the pump is also of concern given the retail stations to procure labels. Labeling and that the background for the area limited space available on the fuel templates were designed and made which includes ‘‘CAUTION!’’, the title pump itself. In the diesel sulfur program

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP04NO10.000 68052 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

we required that labels must be placed sulfur diesel, etc.) was being dispensed comment on the label language for the on the vertical surface of each pump from each pump dispensing diesel fuel. E85 label. housing and on each side that has gallon However, since increasing the number The Agency also seeks comment on and price meters and that labels be on of labels will increase the total cost to requiring labels for so-called blender the upper two-thirds of the pump in a retail stations by requiring that all pumps. Blender pumps allow station location where they are clearly visible gasoline dispensing fuel pumps at a owners to blend E85 and gasoline in (see 40 CFR 80.570(d)). We propose the station be labeled, we seek comment on their storage tanks to create intermediate same placement requirements for the the appropriateness of such a gasoline-ethanol blends. This allows E15 labels. However, since most States requirement. The Agency seeks either station owners or potentially FFV require labels for gasoline blended with comment on the following E10 label drivers to choose which gasoline- ethanol and the Federal Trade language: ethanol blend they prefer, based on Commission (FTC) requires labels E10 operating characteristics and price. specifying minimum octane levels (Contains up to 10% Ethanol) During both the RFS2 and E15 waiver across grades of gasoline, the addition of For use in all gasoline vehicles and request comment periods, the Agency the proposed E15 label may impact engines. received several comments asking us to placement of other labels required by The Agency also seeks comment on require labeling provisions for blender State or Federal law. Furthermore, FTC requiring a label on pumps distributing pumps to address misfueling. Similar to has proposed a mid-level ethanol E85 fuel. E85 is fuel that contains up to E85, consumers may misfuel their non- gasoline-blend label (described below) 85 vol% ethanol and at least 15 vol% FFVs and engines on ethanol blends in addition to its octane label which gasoline, used by flex fuel vehicles greater than 10% (greater than 15% for may further confuse consumers and (FFVs).14 As we noted in the RFS2 2007 and newer light-duty motor make E15 label placement difficult. The NPRM, fuel retailers expressed concern vehicles) due to possible price Agency seeks comment on the proposed that if E85 were priced low enough to differences between intermediate placement of the E15 label in order to encourage FFV owners to fuel on it ethanol blends and gasoline. Non-FFVs most effectively mitigate misfueling, more frequently, then owners of non- and nonroad products were not while at the same time avoid FFVs would also be enticed to misfuel designed for operation on such high interference with other labels on the on it (see 74 FR 24977). This could levels of ethanol and may experience pumps. cause the vehicles and equipment to serious emission, operability, and 2. Additional Fuel Pump Labeling operate very poorly, increasing driveability issues, particularly with Requirements emissions, as well as cause potential prolonged use (e.g. accelerated catalyst long-term damage and long-term deterioration, fuel system component In addition to the E15 label proposed emissions increases. We believe that in failures, etc.). above, the Agency is seeking comment most cases fuel pump labels warning Such a blender pump label would on three additional fuel pump labels that the use of E85 in non-flex fuel have similar appearance and location that would provide consistent labeling vehicles is illegal, can damage the requirements to the E15 label (discussed across all gasoline fuel pumps. First, the vehicle, and can void vehicle above) and the required label language Agency seeks comment on requiring a manufacturer warranties may be a would follow a similar form to that of label on gasoline dispensing fuel pumps sufficient disincentive to mitigate the E15 label. The Agency seeks that are dispensing fuels which contain intentional misfueling. Non-FFVs and comment on the following two blender ethanol in concentrations up to 10 vol% nonroad products were not designed for pump label language options. The first (‘‘E10 label’’).13 We further seek operation on E85 and may experience option’s language addresses a situation comment on whether E10 labels should serious emissions increases, operability, where a vehicle operator can ‘‘dial’’ their be required at a retail station only if and and driveability issues, particularly own gasoline-ethanol blend level. when E15 is made available for sale at with prolonged use (e.g. accelerated a particular retail station. Such an E10 E15–E85 catalyst deterioration, fuel system (Contains between 15% and 85% ethanol) label would have similar appearance component failures, etc.). and location requirements to the E15 For use in flex-fuel vehicles. Such an E85 label would have similar WARNING label and the required label language appearance and location requirements Federal law prohibits use in all other would follow a similar form to that of to the E15 label (discussed above) and vehicles and engines. the E15 label so as to standardize labels the required label language would May damage these vehicles. for consumers. follow a similar form to that of the E15 The purpose of such a label would be The second option’s language is to label. The Agency seeks comment on provide for a specific blend of higher to enhance the effectiveness of the E15 the following E85 label language: label to protect against consumer than 15 vol% ethanol content within misfueling and the associated emissions E85 this range, in which case the station (Contains up to 85% Ethanol) owner would replace the option 1’s impacts. Without such labels, For use in flex-fuel vehicles only. consumers may be confused regarding language with the specific value. The WARNING language for option 2 would be as whether an unlabeled pump was Federal law prohibits use in all other appropriate for their vehicle or engine, vehicles and engines. follows: undercutting the effectiveness and May damage these vehicles and engines. EXX confidence in the E15 label. This We request comment on whether the (Contains up to XX% Ethanol) approach is consistent with the labeling proposed labeling requirements would For use in flex-fuel vehicles. requirements we used in the diesel WARNING provide sufficient warning to consumers prohibits sulfur program where we required the Federal law use in all other not to refuel non-flex-fuel vehicles with vehicles and engines use of labels specifying which type of E85. Additionally the Agency seeks May damage these vehicles and engines. diesel fuel (low-sulfur diesel, ultra-low ‘‘ ’’ 14 FFVs are vehicles or engines that are designed On this label, XX is the exact 13 If the fuel contains no ethanol, it could be to run on gasoline or gasoline-ethanol blends up to maximum ethanol content a fuel labeled as such. E85. dispensed from a particular blender

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68053

pump setting is expected to dispense labeling requirements, since imposing information on the maximum ethanol that is greater than 15 vol% ethanol. separate labeling requirements may concentration in the ethanol blend is The blender pump labels would not confuse consumers and would needed to help ensure that fuel need to specify blends containing ultimately limit the effectiveness of shipments are delivered into the between 10 and 15% ethanol because labeling to mitigate misfueling. appropriate storage tanks at retail and any such fuel pumps would be required Requiring two separate labels would fleet fueling facilities.18 Information on to display the E15 label. However, since also create issues concerning the the maximum Reid Vapor Pressure a blender pump may dispense several placement of the E15 label and may (RVP) of E0, E10 and E15 blends is intermediate ethanol blends (e.g. E20, impose an unnecessary burden on retail needed on PTDs to help ensure that the E30, E40, etc.), the label should specify stations. Finally, we also believe that to fuel is compliant with the applicable a range of ethanol content from E15 ensure the effectiveness of all gasoline summertime RVP requirements. The through E85. Therefore, under this pump labels, it is important that they be RVP reported on the PTD for E10 and second option the blender pump would of similar type and format (i.e. those for E15 blends could be based on the have multiple labels for each of the E10, E15, E85, and blender pumps). intended RVP that the manufacturer of blends that the pump dispenses. 5. Labeling Requirements and Liability the blendstock for oxygenate blending 3. Stakeholder Labeling Suggestions for Misfueling designed for as identified on the PTD for the blendstock.19 Therefore, RVP testing In anticipation of this proposal, EPA It is important to note that compliance after the addition of ethanol would not met with several stakeholders to discuss with the labeling requirements specified be necessary to provide the information the potential label language used for the in this rule does not protect responsible on RVP that would be required on the E15 label language. To date, the Agency parties from liability for misfueling. PTD. has received label language suggestions Today’s regulations not only impose We are proposing that the following 15 from Growth Energy. AllSAFE and the labeling requirements but also a statements would be included on the American Petroleum Institute provided prohibition of the sale or offer for sale PTDs for the various fuel blends: EPA with their public comments to the of E15 for use in unapproved engines, FTC labeling proposal.16 Copies of these vehicles, and equipment (see section For E0: ‘‘E0: Contains no ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [Fill in labeling recommendations may be III.G below). Compliance with the 17 appropriate value]’’ viewed in the docket. We have labeling requirement does not ensure For E10: ‘‘E10: Contains between 9 and 10 considered the suggestions in these that the responsible parties have not volume percent ethanol comments for our proposal, but made prohibited sales. In addition, our The RVP does not exceed [Fill in nevertheless seek comment on whether regulations do not address issues of appropriate value]’’ and if so how to modify our label common law or contract liability For E15: ‘‘E15: Contains up to 15 volume proposals based on these and other between private parties. percent ethanol suggestions. The RVP does not exceed [Fill in B. Product Transfer Document appropriate value]’’ 4. FTC Labeling Proposal Requirements For EXX: ‘‘EXX—Contains up to XX% ethanol. On February 26, 2010, the Federal Product transfer documents (PTDs) Trade Commission (FTC) issued a are customarily generated and used in ‘‘EXX’’ refers to fuels blends above E15 proposed rulemaking that proposes the course of business and are familiar up to and including E85 and fuel blends explicit requirements for gasoline- to parties who transfer or receive below 9 volume percent ethanol. The ethanol blends that contain more than blendstocks, base gasoline for oxygenate maximum potential ethanol content of 10 vol% ethanol and less than 70 vol% blending and oxygenated gasoline. In the fuel would be required to be ethanol (‘‘Mid-Level Ethanol blends’’) addition, EPA has historically put in specified on the PTD in the place of (see 75 FR 12470). Since the FTC place certain requirements for PTDs for ‘‘XX’’. labeling proposal did not contemplate reformulated gasoline blends and We request comment on whether the granting of a waiver for E15, it blendstocks to help ensure downstream additional language on E10 PTDs is would have to be modified to be compliance with our fuel standards. The needed to inform parties that a blend consistent with our recent E15 partial introduction of E15 into the marketplace containing between 9 and 10 volume waiver decision. In addition, as results in the need for additional percent ethanol which benefits from the discussed above, we believe it is information on the PTDs that 1 psi RVP waiver may not be important that the label contain certain accompany the transfer of gasoline and commingled with an E0 or E15 blend.20 components and language necessary to the base gasoline/gasoline blendstocks We request comment on whether any both inform and warn the consumer that used for oxygenate blending, both for other additional information should be are not fully captured in the FTC labels. reformulated gasoline and conventional Therefore, EPA is working with FTC gasoline. The type of additional 18 Currently, ethanol blending typically takes to develop coordinated labeling information needed is different place at the terminal. Evaluations are underway requirements and seeks comment on which may facilitate the shipment of ethanol- upstream versus downstream of the gasoline blends by pipeline to terminals. Hence, how best to achieve this outcome. point of ethanol addition. We believe Preferably, one label would be although the proposed PTD requirements regarding that the additions discussed below to maximum ethanol content currently would developed that meets EPA and FTC existing PTDs are necessary to minimize typically apply to parties downstream of the misfueling, to help ensure downstream terminal, parties upstream of the terminal may need 15 Buis, T. Letter to Karl Simon. 4 April 2010. See to include information on maximum ethanol Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448. compliance with our fuel standards, and concentration on product PTDs in the future. 16 See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448. thereby to support the introduction of 19 This is dependent on the proper amount of 17 Federal Trade Commission, ‘‘# 335; FTC File E15. ethanol being added to the blendstock, and on the No. R811005; 16 CFR Part 306: The Federal Trade product being segregated from all products with a Commission Rule For Automotive Fuel Ratings, 1. PTD Requirements Downstream of the different RVP. Certification and Posting: Notice of Proposed Point of Ethanol Addition 20 Such as, ‘‘Designed for the special RVP Rulemaking and Request for Comments.’’ September provisions for ethanol blends. Do not blend with 2010. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/ Downstream of the point where gasoline containing less than 9 vol% ethanol or fuelratingnprm/index.shtm. ethanol blending takes place, E15.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

provided on the PTDs for ethanol fuel advantage of the 1psi allowance for E10 a continuing small burden associated blends. in order to help prevent downstream with using product codes and violations of the RVP standards: ‘‘The statements on PTDs. Given this and the 2. PTD Requirements Up to and use of this gasoline to manufacture a fact that PTDs are used in the course of Including the Point of Ethanol Addition gasoline-ethanol blend with less than 9 business, we believe that the proposed Upstream of the point where E10 and vol% ethanol or E15 may cause an RVP new PTD requirements could be readily E15 blends are manufactured, violation.’’ We request comment on accommodated by industry. The information is needed on the PTDs for whether any additional information increased burden which would result base gasoline or gasoline blendstock should be provided on the PTDs for from the adoption of these proposed used for oxygenate blending (BOB) 21 to BOBs. PTD requirements is detailed in section facilitate ethanol blender compliance IX.B. of this preamble. 3. General PTD Requirements with the applicable EPA summertime C. Retail Fuel Dispenser Label and Fuel RVP requirements.22 This information We are proposing that on each Ethanol Content Survey would need to include the maximum occasion when any person transfers potential RVP of the BOB and the custody and/or ownership of any To help mitigate the potential for maximum ethanol concentration that gasoline or base gasoline/gasoline misfueling, oversight of fuel retailer may be added to the BOB. blendstock used for oxygenate blending, compliance with the proposed E15 To satisfy these needs, we are the transferor would be required to labeling requirements and of the actual proposing that PTDs for BOBs for use in provide the transferee with an ethanol content of the dispensed fuel in the manufacture of ethanol blends that appropriate PTD identifying the comparison to the information on the are subject to summertime RVP controls gasoline/blendstock/base gasoline and label is needed. To provide adequate include the maximum RVP of the BOB. its characteristics (as defined below), as oversight, EPA conditioned the E15 We are also proposing that such PTDs well as such general information as the partial waiver on a requirement that in non-RFG areas indicate what ethanol names and addresses of the transferor ethanol blenders, ethanol producers, concentration is suitable to be blended and transferee, the volume of product ethanol importers, petroleum refiners, with the BOB. The RFG requirements being transferred, the location of the and petroleum importers participate in found at 40 CFR 80.77 already contain product on the date of transfer, and a survey of compliance at fuel retail 23 requirements that PTDs indicate what specific information described in this facilities. The E15 partial waiver oxygenate and oxygenate amount are preamble. We are proposing that all decision specified that an EPA- suitable to be blended with the parties would be required to retain PTDs approved survey plan is to be in place reformulated blendstocks for oxygenate for a period of not less than five years prior to introduction of E15 to the blending (RBOBs). and would be required to provide them marketplace and that the results of the We are proposing that the following to EPA upon request. Five years is the survey must be provided to EPA for use statements would be included on the normal record retention requirement for in its enforcement and compliance PTDs for BOBs in non-RFG areas: 40 CFR part 80 fuels programs, such as assurance activities. the reformulated gasoline (RFG) Today’s notice contains our proposal ‘‘Suitable for blending with ethanol at a program. on requiring a survey as part of a concentration up to 15 volume % ethanol’’ or, We are proposing that PTDs would be misfueling mitigation program. This in the case of a BOB designed to take required to be used by all parties in the proposal covers how the required advantage of the 1psi allowance for E10 in 40 distribution chain down to the point survey should be formulated and CFR 80.27(d)(2): ‘‘Designed for the special RVP provisions where the product is sold, dispensed, or conducted. As discussed in section for ethanol blends that contain between 9 otherwise made available to the ultimate III.G., we are proposing that the survey and 10 volume % ethanol’’ consumer. We are proposing that could be used to meet the periodic ‘‘The RVP of this blendstock/base gasoline product codes could be used to convey sampling and testing elements of a for oxygenate blending does not exceed [Fill the information required as long as the regulated party’s affirmative defenses to in appropriate value]’’ codes are clearly understood by each presumptive liability in cases where As we are proposing and seeking transferee. However, we believe that instances of noncompliance with the comment on blendstock commingling product codes alone would not be applicable maximum ethanol content prohibitions in addition to those already sufficient for transfers to truck carriers, specification are discovered. Should in place for RFG (see section III.D.) we retailers, or wholesale-purchaser EPA finalize the additional labeling also request comment on whether consumers. Hence, we are proposing requirements that we requested additional information is needed on the that the full proposed text would need comment on in section III.A.2. of this PTDs for BOBs to help ensure that these to be included on the PTD for transfers proposal, evaluation of retailer blending restrictions are observed. We to truck carriers, retailers, or wholesale- compliance with these labeling request comment on whether the purchaser consumers. requirements would also be included in following language should be added to Parties would be afforded significant the survey. Regardless of whether we the PTD for a BOB designed to take freedom with regard to the form PTDs finalize labeling provisions, testing on take under this proposal, although we the ethanol content of the fuel delivered 21 For purposes of this discussion, the blendstock are proposing that the PTDs would be from all non-FFV dispensers would or base gasoline (BOB) is typically referring to the required to travel in some manner need to be included in the survey to fungible base gasoline produced at a refinery for the (paper or electronically) with the help mitigate misfueling. specific intention of adding ethanol. The fungible volume of blendstock or fuel being The survey requirements that we are gasoline produced for this purpose is subject to all of the 40 CFR parts 79 and 80 regulations applicable transferred. The addition of the proposing are based on an existing to gasoline. However, under 40 CFR 80.101(d)(4), a proposed information to PTDs would refiner with direct control of the ethanol addition not require any additional testing of fuel 23 See Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean to the actual gasoline produced by that refiner may composition. Adoption of these Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth consider the final fuel including the ethanol when Energy to Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content complying with part 79 and 80 regulations. proposed changes would add a one-time of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the 22 See section IV of this preamble for a discussion burden to program and implement new Administrator elsewhere in this issue of the Federal of the RVP requirements for E15 and E10. product codes and statements, as well as Register.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68055

survey of compliance with the EPA program would be implemented. For the proportion of retail stations that are labeling requirements for retail diesel first annual survey, we propose that non-compliant. We seek comment on fuel dispensers, and with the maximum proof of payment be submitted to the both the minimum number of samples allowable sulfur content of the diesel Agency no later than one month before and the method for determining samples fuel delivered from these dispensers the sampling and testing program would sizes. under EPA’s ULSD program. EPA be implemented. We seek comment on Since initially E15 may be introduced recently codified the requirements for the deadlines for both the survey plan into commerce in a limited geographical this diesel fuel survey in a direct final and proof of payment for the survey for area, it may not be necessary to carry rule that became effective on July 12, the first survey and on subsequent out the full survey or to carry it out 2010.24 The reformulated gasoline (RFG) surveys. nationwide. One way to potentially program also utilizes a compliance We propose that the sampling and resolve this issue would be to limit the survey program to ensure seasonal RFG testing program would ensure areas required to be surveyed to areas area requirements are met for predicted comprehensive geographic coverage that are known to have E15 being emissions performance based on average nationally representative of gasoline distributed. Unfortunately, there are no area fuel parameters. Based on the sold at retail outlets by providing reliable real-time data that show when ULSD and RFG programs, we are proportionate coverage of gasoline E15 is first introduced into an area and proposing two options for obligated across three sampling strata. These three it could take awhile for the proposed parties to satisfy the survey strata generally refer to: (1) Densely annual survey program to incorporate requirement. Survey Option 1 allows populated areas, which include these new geographic areas. individual obligated parties to elect to Metropolitan Statistical Areas and the Additionally, the borders of such areas individually survey gasoline and retail reformulated gasoline control areas; (2) are difficult to define and constantly stations anywhere their fuel might be transportation corridors, which are shift in response to market forces. This sold. Survey Option 2 allows obligated based on interstate highways outside the approach also undermines one of the parties to form a consortium that densely populated areas;25 and (3) rural stated purposes of the survey program, contracts an independent survey areas, which include all areas not namely that the survey program helps association to conduct a national included in the previous two strata. deter either intentional or unintentional ethanol content and E15 labeling These areas would be subdivided into violations by increasing the likelihood survey. clusters, generally based on groupings of of violators being randomly caught. If For Survey Option 1, we propose that counties. The specific criteria used for EPA allows only certain areas to be obligated parties choosing the selecting sampling areas for each survey surveyed while excluding others, some individual survey option must survey plan would be subject to EPA approval. parties may manufacturer, blend, or labels and ethanol content at retail We seek comment on all aspects of the distribute E15 without properly stations wherever their gasoline may be proposed elements that a survey plan identifying the fuel as E15 or properly distributed if it may be blended as E15. should include. labeling the fuel dispenser as dispensing Prior to conducting such a survey a Comment is specifically requested on E15. By the time the survey program survey plan would have to be approved the criteria which should be used to caught up, motor vehicles and nonroad by EPA. We seek comment on all determine the minimum sample size for products not approved for E15 use may aspects related to Survey Option 1. the survey. The sampling and testing have been misfueled for a long time. On For Survey Option 2, we propose that program would need to both accurately the other hand, if there were ways to the survey would consist of a estimate the proportion of retail stations properly identify areas that are nationwide program of sampling and that are non-compliant with E15 distributing E15 real time, then limiting testing designed to provide oversight of labeling and ethanol content the survey to only those areas could all retail stations that sell gasoline. requirements and provide a credible considerably reduce the cost of Details of the proposed survey deterrent to deliberate or inadvertent compliance with the proposed survey requirements are similar to those violations of downstream enforcement requirements. The Agency seeks included in the ULSD and RFG standards. For the ULSD survey comment on ways to possibly limit programs. We propose that the survey program, we require a minimum of surveys to only those areas that have organization would be required to 5,250 samples annually. For a national E15 being introduced into commerce. submit survey plans on an annual basis survey looking at all gasoline retail Another option to limit survey that would be applicable from January stations, we believe the minimum requirements would be to require a 1 through December 31. We propose number of samples needs to be greater national survey, but have a lower that EPA would review the first survey because there are more than three times minimum sample size that gradually plan within two months of its receipt. the number of retail stations that sell increases over time. Since the proposed We propose that the survey organization gasoline compared with stations that approach for determining sample sizes would be required to submit subsequent sell diesel. We propose that the survey above 7,500 discussed above is based on survey plans to EPA for approval by take a minimum of 7,500 samples the proportion of retail stations that are November 1 of the year proceeding the spread across four quarterly surveys. We noncompliant with ethanol content and/ calendar year in which the sampling also propose a sample size equation or E15 labeling requirements, if there is and testing program would be similar to the one used to determine very little E15 being introduced into the implemented. The Agency also proposes sample sizes for the ULSD survey marketplace, the proportion of that proof that the amount of money program (see equation in the proposed noncompliant retail stations would be necessary has been paid to the surveyor regulations at 80.1502(b)(4)(v)(A)). This small. In this case, 7,500 samples may is sent to EPA no later than December equation bases sample size on the be substantially higher than the number 15 of the year proceeding the calendar of samples required by the proposed 25 year in which the sampling and testing Transportation corridors would include areas method for determining sample sizes. immediately adjacent to the highways themselves Since this is most likely to occur at the and a swath within several miles on each side of 24 Alternative Affirmative Defense Requirements the highway. For any given survey, a certain length beginning of the survey program, the for Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel and Gasoline Benzene of any specific highway might be deemed survey program could gradually Technical Amendment, 75 FR 26121, May 11, 2010. appropriate as a sampling unit or cluster. increase the annual minimum sample

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68056 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

size to reduce the burden to industry. and organizations provided program heavy-duty gasoline engines and For example, the Agency may only information and coordination to their vehicles, motorcycles, and nonroad require a minimum of 2,000 samples the members and customers as well as to products. Stakeholders have further first full survey year (2012), 4,000 facilitate the introduction of new suggested that, if a unique misfueling samples in 2013, 6,000 samples in 2014, program requirements this past July. Web site is created, then EPA should and 7,500 samples in 2015. We seek In the case of E15, outreach to require the Web site address to be comment on this gradual minimum consumers and stakeholders may be displayed on the E15 label. EPA seeks sample size approach and all other critical to help mitigate misfueling comment on the appropriateness of a issues related to determining the incidents that can result in increased unique misfueling Web site and of minimum number of samples for a emissions or vehicle or engine damage. including such a Web site address on national ethanol content and E15 The potential for E15 misfueling the E15 label. labeling survey. incidents exists because consumers tend We also are proposing that the to choose the lowest priced fuel, and E. What other means of mitigating independent survey association would E15 may cost less than E10 since misfueling were considered? ship fuel samples on the same day that ethanol currently tends to be less EPA believes that the proposed the sample was collected and that the expensive than gasoline. misfueling mitigation approach will sample be analyzed for ethanol content A recent example of successful effectively and sufficiently mitigate within 24 hours from the time the outreach to consumers and stakeholders misfueling based on our past samples were acquired. Although is the coordinated work done in support experience. The Agency employed a having such a short delivery time for of the ULSD program. ULSD was a new similar and relevant misfueling fuel samples to be analyzed may fuel with the possibility of consumer mitigation program when ULSD was increase costs, this time period is both misfueling that could result in engine introduced in 2006. Retail stations and consistent with other fuel survey damage. With ULSD, the fuel industry wholesale purchaser-consumers were programs and would allow ethanol trade association API took the lead in required to have fuel dispenser labels content and E15 labeling violations working with stakeholders to establish indicating whether the diesel being found by the survey to be corrected the Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance (CDFA), dispensed was 500 ppm (low sulfur quickly to mitigate misfueling. We seek a collaboration of public and private diesel or LSD) or 15 ppm (ULSD). comment on the proposed amount of organizations designed to ensure a MY2007 and newer on-highway diesel time allowed for samples to be shipped smooth program transition by providing vehicles and engines were required to for the analysis of ethanol content. comprehensive information and use ULSD and prohibited from using For both survey options, we require technical coordination. The LSD. At the beginning of the ULSD that survey plans would include a organizations represented in the CDFA program, we were aware of several methodology for determining when the include engine manufacturers, fuel instances where consumers, after survey samples will be collected, the retailers, trucking fleets, DOE and EPA. checking the labels, had difficulty locations of the retail outlets where the CDFA efforts to educate ULSD users finding ULSD in some areas. Consumers samples will be collected, the number of include developing technical guidance were informed that misfueling would samples to be included in the survey, and educational information, including result in significant engine damage. We procedures that would prevent the a Web site (http://www.clean-diesel.org), are not aware of any significant advance notification of retail stations, as well as serving as a central point of instances when misfueling occurred and how individual retail stations will contact to address ULSD-related during this labeling program. This be determined for sampling. We propose questions. indicates that EPA outreach and that samples at retail stations be taken The CDFA outreach model could information provided by the engine from all gasoline dispensers and have prove beneficial in this case. EPA manufacturers, Clean Diesel Fuel the samples tested for ethanol content anticipates that all parties that may be Alliance, and other stakeholders, was and that retail stations be selected involved in bringing higher gasoline- effective in educating consumers and randomly with the probability of ethanol blends to market would mitigating misfueling. Additionally, we selection proportionate to the volume of participate in a coordinated industry-led feel that product transfer document gasoline sold at the retail outlet. We also consumer education and outreach effort. requirements and the ULSD survey propose that ethanol content be In the context of this program, potential program were vital in implementing and measured in accordance with a test key participants include ethanol enforcing this fuel transition. Based on method that meets the requirement of 40 producers, fuel manufacturers, the success of the ULSD program, we CFR 80.46(g). We seek comment on automobile, engine and equipment believe that similar requirements for these requirements for survey plans and manufacturers, States, non- E15 will be sufficient and successful. whether any additional requirements governmental organizations, parties in Some have argued that the ULSD are necessary. We also seek comment on the fuel distribution system, EPA, DOE, program example is not applicable in all matters related to the national and USDA. Potential education and this case since the MY2007 and newer ethanol content and E15 labeling survey outreach activities a public/private on-highway diesel vehicles and engines proposed today. group could undertake include serving were at risk from misfueling, whereas as a central clearinghouse for technical for E15, it is primarily older motor D. Program Outreach questions about E15 and its use, vehicles (i.e., MY2000 and older motor Effective outreach to consumers and promoting best practices to educate vehicles) that are at risk. While EPA stakeholders is often essential to the consumers or mitigate misfueling believes that the potential for engine successful implementation of instances, and developing educational repair costs applies in both cases, the environmental protection programs. To materials and making them available to Agency also believes that similar implement the RFS program, for the public. misfueling mitigation measures can be example, EPA provides training Some stakeholders have also effective for E15 as well. Coupled with seminars for stakeholders and manages suggested that a Web site be created to an effective outreach and public dedicated telephone and e-mail support inform consumers of the potential education program, the proposed lines. Various industry representatives impacts of E15 on older motor vehicles, mitigation measures should deter

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68057

misfueling and encourage consumers to the cost of separate islands at $700 per intentional misfueling. However, API pay close attention to the E15 labels. station and $40 million nationwide, believes that nozzle grips with different Some have also argued that the ULSD though they did not cost out the textures would be noticeable to most program is not applicable because the consumer implications. consumers, even those who do not read ULSD program focused primarily on Another option discussed is a the pump labels. Also, hand nozzle commercial truck drivers, who may be measure in which keypads or grips are easy to install and replace as more cognizant of fuel choices due to touchscreens would be made available needed. API has estimated the cost at $5 the potential impact on their at each pump to allow consumers to to $11 per nozzle with a national cost commercial investments, than the input data about their motor vehicle or of $800,000 to $1.6 million. general public. We believe that simply answer ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to the While many of the strategies consumers are also concerned about question of whether their motor vehicle discussed in the API study may be their private vehicles, and that the is an FFV or non-FFV. If the motor effective in communicating with the potential costs associated with vehicle is appropriate for the fuel, then consumer about E15, EPA believes that misfueling (discussed below in section the pump would allow fueling. If the combination of pump labels, III.F) will have just as much of an existing dispensers do not already have regulatory prohibition on misfueling, impact in informing consumer fuel display screens, this strategy would PTDs, a survey, and consumer outreach choices. As long as fuel dispensers are require retail stations to install keypads will adequately mitigate misfueling by properly labeled and consumers are or touchscreens at an approximate cost consumers. The labels on the fuel adequately informed of the associated of $5,000 for dispensers that may be pumps will notify consumers that the risks of misfueling nonroad products retrofitted, with the cost prohibitive for pump is for E15 and only certain MY and older motor vehicles on E15, we dispensers that may not be retrofitted. motor vehicles should use that fuel. believe the proposed misfueling There may also be an additional cost per Consumer outreach will give the mitigation program will be effective. station of $10,000—$20,000 to install a consumer more in-depth information, While EPA believes that the central controller to accept motor such as why older MY motor vehicles, misfueling mitigation provisions vehicle information. Such a strategy heavy-duty gasoline engines and included in today’s proposal will may cause some congestion at the vehicles, motorcycles, and nonroad address potential misfueling concerns, pumps. Intentional misfueling would products should not fuel with E15 and we recognize that these provisions are not be prevented through such measure. what damage may occur from not the only potential means for Also discussed in the report was a misfueling. The PTDs will help ensure addressing misfueling concerns. EPA strategy in which retail stations would that E15 is identified as such through has received many suggestions for have a video or audio presentation play the distribution chain, which will help mitigating misfueling. For example, API when a mid- to high- gasoline-ethanol prevent inadvertent mislabeling of fuel. conducted a scoping study, ‘‘Evaluation blend pump is lifted from the dispenser. Finally, a survey will identify where of Measures to Mitigate Misfueling of The presentation would provide mislabeling (or no labeling) of E15 has Mid- to High-Ethanol Blend Fuels at information to the consumer about occurred so that appropriate labels are Fuel Dispensing Facilities,’’ that E10+, which motor vehicles may fuel used. includes many of these suggestions. with it, and why other motor vehicles Other options that have been That study may be found in the should not. Optionally, the consumer suggested may be too expensive, docket.26 could be required to confirm fueling difficult to implement, and/or otherwise One suggestion in API’s study was to with E10+ at the end of the not likely acceptable to consumers. As have full service attendants at gas presentation. The cost of such an such, EPA does not deem it appropriate stations that ensure E15 is only used in alternative for those stations without to include these options in today’s appropriate motor vehicles. While such display screens, is estimated to be proposal. We seek comment on any a measure may be effective, its overall $5,000; if the existing dispenser could other measures not proposed in the rule effectiveness is unknown and it would not be retrofitted with a display screen, that the regulated industries and other be a large burden on service stations to there would be additional and interested parties feel may be necessary considerable costs incurred for to mitigate misfueling. We seek employ service attendants for this replacing a dispenser. Costs for this comment on any other cost-effective purpose. This option would come at an option could be as high as $20,000 per mitigation measures that may be extremely large cost, and there would station. appropriate. If EPA considers requiring need to be significant training of new API also suggested that a different any other mitigation measures that are employees. API estimates the average colored hand warmer or a different type suggested by commenters in the final annual cost per service station at of nozzle grip for fuel pumps with E15+ rule, EPA will conduct appropriate $67,500 and the annual nationwide cost may help alert consumers to the new analyses of such measures, including at $10.6 billion. Another suggestion was type of fuel without a large burden on the impacts on small businesses, before to have separate islands at service retail stations. Hand nozzles for E15+ deciding whether to include such stations, with one for blends at E10 and would be a different color than for other mitigation measures in the final rule. below, and one for mid- and high- gasoline types, or would have a different gasoline-ethanol blends. It was noted texture from other hand grips. To be F. Cost of Compliance that this measure would also likely effective, one color or one type of grip The cost of compliance with the cause congestion at the pumps, be should be used for E15+ on a national provisions being proposed today inconvenient for the consumer, reduce basis. Consumers would know by the include the periodic capital costs of the number of pumps available for color and/or texture that those pumps labeling fuel dispensers, the onetime higher-demand fuels, and not prevent were for E15+. Some concerns about costs of the PTD requirements, and the intentional misfueling. API estimates this option are that it would not be annual cost of the survey requirements. possible to distinguish nozzles that The cost of the proposed labeling 26 American Petroleum Institute, ‘‘Evaluation of Measures to Mitigate Misfueling of Mid- to High- dispense both E10 and E15, some requirements is estimated at $1.04 Ethanol Blend Fuels at Fuel Dispensing Facilities,’’ consumers may not notice the warmer million per year on an annualized basis. EPA Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448. or grip, and this would not prevent The cost of the proposed PTD

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68058 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

requirements is estimated at $0.56 gasoline price) the annual revenue for a proposed PTD requirements. We request million per year on an annualized basis. small service station from its gasoline comment on these estimated costs. The cost of the proposed survey sales is approximately $1.7 million.31 3. Survey Costs requirements is estimated at $2.05 Thus, the cost of the labels represents million per year. The total cost of all of less than 0.001% of the total annual The estimated costs of the proposed the proposed requirements is estimated revenue of a small gas station from its ethanol content and labeling survey are at $3.65 million per year. These gasoline sales.32 based on experience with the existing estimated costs are detailed in the Although we are requesting comment RFG and ULSD surveys and discussions following sections. As discussed in on whether all gasoline fuel dispensers with industry. The RFG survey includes section III.F.4, we believe that these should be labeled,33 today’s notice only all of the elements required in the costs will be more than offset by the includes proposed labeling proposed nationwide survey except the avoided costs of repairing engines/ requirements for E15 fuel dispensers. survey of compliance with the proposed vehicles that could otherwise have been Nevertheless, we are assuming all labeling requirements. We estimate that damaged by misfueling in the absence of gasoline refueling positions would be the cost of adding the proposed survey the implementation of the proposed relabeled for the purposes of estimating of compliance with the proposed requirements. the costs of this proposal. This approach labeling requirements to the existing provides a conservatively high estimate RFG survey at $50,000 per year. The 1. Labeling Costs of costs if only the proposed E15 cost to implement all of the proposed Our estimate of the cost of the labeling requirements are finalized. By survey provisions for conventional proposed E15 fuel dispenser labeling multiplying the average number of gasoline is estimated at $2 million per requirement includes the cost to the fuel gasoline refueling positions per retail year. Thus, the total cost of the retailer of purchasing the label, the facility, by the number of fuel retailers, proposed survey requirements is administrative cost to ensure that all and the cost per label, we arrived at an estimated to be $2.05 million per year.35 gasoline dispensers are labeled estimated cost of $6.23 million to We request comments on this estimate. appropriately, and the labor cost to replace all of the labels at gasoline 4. Avoided Motor Vehicle and Nonroad replace fuel dispenser labels. Based on refueling positions at all fuel retailers in Product Repair Costs our past experience with labeling the U.S. We assumed an 8 year label life programs, the RFS2 NPRM and industry before it needs to be replaced. We believe that proposed labeling and input, the cost of an E15 label is Amortizing the periodic labeling costs associated survey and PTD provisions estimated to be $5.00 per label.27 There using a 7% cost of capital, we estimate will be an effective tool at mitigating are approximately 162,000 retail gas the annualized cost to comply with the unintentional misfueling based on our stations in the U.S. according to proposed labeling provisions to be experience with other labeling National Petroleum News.28 The RFS2 approximately $1.04 million per year. provisions (such as ULSD). The Final RIA estimates that there is an We request comments on these resulting prevention of misfueling will average of 7.7 gasoline refueling estimated costs. not only minimize the potential positions per retail station.29 Thus, for emission increases that could result (as 2. PTD Costs a retail facility that has 8 refueling discussed in section VI.I.), but also positions, the total cost if all of the Section IX.B. of today’s preamble avoid potentially costly highway motor dispenser labels are replaced would be contains a discussion of the costs of the vehicle, heavy-duty gasoline engines $40.00. A number of fuel retailers are PTD requirements proposed in today’s and vehicles, motorcycles, and nonroad small businesses. However, we believe notice.34 There would be a one-time cost product repairs that would be that the minor cost of label replacement of $5.1 million to regulated parties to anticipated to far exceed the cost of the would not represent a significant modify the formatting of their existing labels. For example, based on a poll of additional burden to any fuel retailer. PTDs to accommodate the new automobile repair facilities, fuel pump Specifically, making the conservative information which would be required as and catalyst replacements average $427 assumption that there will be the a result of the implementation of today’s and $1,250, respectively. Similarly, for maximum number of pumps (8) even for proposal. After the one-time nonroad equipment, the cost for a fuel small stations and assuming an 8 year modification of PTD formatting is line repair of handheld equipment (e.g. life before labels need to be replaced, complete, we believe that there would trimmers, chainsaws) or non-handheld the annualized cost to a service station be no significant additional costs equipment (e.g. lawnmowers, is $5 per year. The amount of gasoline associated with communicating the generators) could cost $100-$400 (based sold at a small service station is additional information that would be on information received from repair estimated to be approximately 60,000 required by today’s proposal to facilities in Ann Arbor, Michigan and gallons/month.30 Assuming an average downstream parties in the distribution vicinity) and replacing this same cost of gasoline at $2.31/gal (per the EIA system (either in electronic or paper equipment can range from $100 2009 national average regular grade form). By amortizing the one-time (consumer handheld) to $5,000 reformatting costs over a period of 15 (commercial grade garden tractor) 27 RFS2 NPRM RIA page 581 (EPA–420–D–09– years at a 7% cost of capital, we arrive should the engine fail.36 While there are 001; May, 2009); available at: http://www.epa.gov/ at an annualized cost of $560,000 for the no data to estimate the frequency at otaq/renewablefuels/420d09001.pdf). which these repairs or other potential 28 National Petroleum News, ‘‘2008 marketfacts’’, 31 Energy Information Administration (EIA) complications (discussed in section VI) states that there were 161,768 gasoline retail annual national average gasoline price data http:// facilities in 2008 http://www.npnweb.com. www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/ associated with misfueling on E15 might 29 RFS2 Final RIA, page 232 (EPA–420–R–10– pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_a.htm. 006; February 2010); available at: http:// 32 See section IX.D. of this notice for additional 35 See section III.C. for a discussion of the www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf). discussion of potential impacts from today’s proposed survey provisions. 30 The National Association of Convenience proposal on small businesses. 36 While this analysis is focused on small SI Stores (NACS) 2006 State of the Industry Report 33 Including E0, E10, E15, EXX, and E85 fuel engines, note that other nonroad equipment/vehicle states that for motor fuel retail stations that sell less dispensers. See section III.A. of this notice. categories can incur higher expenses due to the than 75,000 gallons of all motor fuels, the average 34 Section III.B. contains a discussion of the higher complexity of the equipment/vehicle monthly throughput is 57,778 gallons. proposed PTD requirements. compared to small SI engines.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68059

occur, even if these potential these motor vehicles unless we grant an prohibited acts, such as selling or complications were avoided on a tiny E15 waiver for these motor vehicles. distributing gasoline-ethanol blends fraction of MY2000 and older motor In addition to this general misfueling with an ethanol content that exceeds the vehicles and nonroad products as a prohibition, there are several other maximum for the intended end-use result of the regulations (as opposed to prohibited acts that we are proposing in category of vehicles/engines, or causing/ actions taken independently by industry conjunction with the regulatory contributing to others committing in response to conditions on the partial provisions being proposed today. We prohibited acts. In addition, parties waiver), the savings would still far are proposing that retailers and would be liable for a failure to meet exceed the costs of compliance. We wholesale purchaser consumers would certain affirmative requirements or request comment on this assessment. be prohibited from dispensing E15 causing others to fail to meet their unless they comply with the proposed affirmative requirements. All parties in G. Compliance and Enforcement dispenser labeling requirements in the fuel distribution system would be 1. What are the prohibited acts? section III.A. of today’s preamble. We liable for a failure to fulfill the are proposing that ethanol blenders recordkeeping and PTD requirements. There is a long-standing prohibition, would be prohibited from introducing a. Presumptive Liability under CAA section 211(f)(1), that fuel E15 into commerce without complying manufacturers may not introduce with the proposed ethanol content All EPA fuels programs include a gasoline-ethanol blends containing survey requirements in section III.C. of presumptive liability scheme for greater than 10 vol% ethanol into today’s preamble. violations of prohibited acts. Under this commerce for use in non-flex-fuel In addition, there are several RVP approach, liability is imposed on two vehicles. The partial waiver modifies related prohibitions that exist today that types of parties: (1) The party in the fuel this prohibition so that gasoline-ethanol may need to be modified in light of E15. distribution system that controls the blends containing up to 15 vol% There is an existing prohibition with facility where the violation was found ethanol may legally be introduced into respect to exceeding applicable or has occurred; and (2) those parties, 38 commerce by fuel manufacturers for use summertime RVP requirements. We typically upstream in the fuel in MY2007 and later light-duty motor are proposing to prohibit the distribution system from the initially vehicles. The waiver does not apply to commingling of an E10 gasoline-ethanol listed party (such as any distributor of any MY heavy-duty gasoline engine or blend with either E0 or E15 due to the fuel), whose prohibited activities vehicle, motorcycle, or nonroad potential concerns about causing a could have caused the program product. violation of summertime RVP nonconformity to exist.40 This requirements unless the E10 blend had presumptive liability scheme has We are proposing that all parties not taken advantage of the 1 psi RVP worked well in enabling us to enforce would be prohibited from selling, waiver. For the same reasons, our fuels programs since it creates introducing into commerce or causing prohibitions on the commingling of comprehensive liability for essentially or allowing the sale or introduction into BOBs is necessary. Therefore we are all the potentially responsible parties. commerce of gasoline that has an proposing certain prohibitions against The presumptions of liability may be ethanol content above 10 vol% ethanol commingling conventional gasoline rebutted by establishing an affirmative into MY 2000 and older light-duty BOBs similar to the prohibitions for defense. motor vehicles, any heavy-duty gasoline reformulated blendstocks for oxygenate To clarify the inclusive nature of engine or vehicle, any motorcycle, and blending (RBOBs) in 40 CFR 80.78 these presumptive liability schemes, any nonroad product. We are also under the RFG program. Specifically, today’s proposed rule would explicitly proposing that fuel distributors who we are proposing to prohibit include as prohibitions causing another transport or store a gasoline-ethanol commingling an E10 BOB (produced to person to commit a prohibited act and blend, base gasoline or blendstock for take advantage of the 1 psi RVP waiver) causing the presence of a non- ethanol blending would be prohibited with an E15 BOB unless the resulting conforming gasoline-ethanol blend from increasing the ethanol content to mixture is designated as an E10 BOB. 37 (such as a blend designated as exceed the value noted on the PTD. We request comment on whether other containing less than 15 vol% ethanol Since the Agency is deferring a decision modifications to these existing RVP which actually contains a greater for MY2001–2006 motor vehicles, we related regulatory requirements are concentration of ethanol) to be in the are not proposing a prohibition for fuel needed as a result of the introduction of distribution system. This is consistent used in these motor vehicles at this E15. with the provisions and implementation time. DOE testing of MY2001–2006 2. What are the proposed liability and of other fuels programs. light-duty motor vehicles is ongoing and penalty provisions for noncompliance? Today’s proposed rule, therefore, EPA expects to make a waiver provides that most parties involved in Today’s proposed rule contains determination for these vehicles shortly the chain of distribution would be prohibition and liability provisions that after the results of the DOE testing are subject to a presumption of liability for are similar to those of the other fuels available. If EPA does not grant an E15 committing prohibited actions and programs in 40 CFR Part 80.39 Under the waiver for MY2001–2006 light-duty causing violations by other parties. For proposed regulation, regulated parties motor vehicles, then we would expect to example, an ethanol blender could be would be liable for committing certain include the same prohibitions for these held presumptively liable for causing a MY motor vehicles in the final gasoline-ethanol blend that exceeds the rulemaking. Even though we are not 38 See 40 CFR 80.27. 39 maximum ethanol content stated on the proposing an actual prohibition for See section 80.5 (penalties for fuels violations); section 80.23 (liability for lead violations); section product’s PTD to be present in the motor vehicles MY2001–2006, it is still 80.28 (liability for volatility violations); section distribution system unless the blender unlawful for fuel manufacturers to 80.30 (liability for diesel violations); section 80.79 provides an affirmative defense to introduce E15 into commerce for use in (liability for violation of RFG prohibited acts); section 80.80 (penalties for RFG/CG violations); section 80.395 (liability for gasoline sulfur 40 An additional type of liability, vicarious 37 A violation of this prohibition could cause or violations); section 80.405 (penalties for gasoline liability, is also imposed on branded refiners under contribute to vehicle misfueling downstream. sulfur regulations). these fuels programs.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68060 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

demonstrate that it did not cause the content. For tank truck carriers, we are likelihood of identifying persons who exceedance. An ethanol blender could proposing that the quality assurance cause violations of the prohibited acts in cause such an exceedance by adding too program would not need to include today’s proposal. We normally do not much ethanol to a blend or making an periodic sampling and testing of the have the information necessary to error on the PTD that they prepare. An gasoline-ethanol blend, but in lieu of establish the cause of a violation found ethanol manufacturer could be held sampling and testing, the carrier would at a downstream facility. We believe presumptively liability for causing an be required to demonstrate evidence of that those persons who actually handle exceedance of the maximum ethanol an oversight program for monitoring the fuel are in the best position to content requirements unless it could compliance, such as appropriate identify the cause of the violation, and demonstrate that the ethanol it guidance to drivers on compliance with that a rebuttable presumption of liability produced could not have caused the applicable requirements and the would provide an incentive for parties downstream violation.41 Like other fuels periodic review of records concerning to be forthcoming with information regulations, a refiner also would be the quality of gasoline-ethanol blends regarding the cause of the violation. In subject to a presumption of vicarious and their delivery. addition to identifying the party that liability for violations by any With respect to the assessment of caused the violation, providing downstream facility that displays the liability for the introduction of E15 into evidence to rebut a presumption of refiner’s brand name, based on the any engines, vehicles or equipment that liability would serve to establish a refiner’s ability to exercise control at are not covered by the partial waiver for defense for the parties that are not these facilities. Carriers, however, use of E15, EPA would typically not responsible. Presumptive liability is would be liable only for violations hold a self-service fuel retailer liable for familiar to both the petroleum industry arising from product under their control customer misfueling if the retailer has and EPA, and we believe that this or custody and not for causing non- labeled their dispensers appropriately approach would make the most efficient conforming gasoline to be in the and did not condone or facilitate such use of EPA’s enforcement resources. For distribution system, except where misfueling. these reasons we are proposing a specific evidence of causation exists. A We are proposing that participation in liability scheme based on a presumption carrier might cause an exceedance of the the ethanol content survey could be of liability. We request comment on the ethanol content stated on the PTD for used to meet some or all of the periodic proposed liability provisions. product in its custody by commingling sampling and testing elements of a c. Penalties for Violations products with dissimilar ethanol regulated party’s (e.g. branded refiners, contents. For example, a carrier might ethanol blenders, and fuel distributors) CAA section 211(d)(1) provides for cause the ethanol content of a product affirmative defenses to presumptive penalties for violations of the fuels designated as E15 to exceed 15 vol% liability in cases where instances of regulations. These penalty provisions ethanol by transporting the product in a noncompliance with the applicable subject any person that violates any tank truck that had previously maximum ethanol content specification requirement or prohibition of the rule to transported E85 that had not been are discovered.42 In addition to a civil penalty of up to $27,500 for every properly drained. participation in the survey, we are day of each such violation and the proposing that ethanol blenders would amount of economic benefit or savings b. Affirmative Defenses for Liable be required to periodically test the resulting from the violation. Pursuant to Parties accuracy of their equipment/methods 40 CFR 19.4, the amounts of civil This proposal also includes used to add ethanol to gasoline. We are penalties for these violations increased affirmative defenses for each party that proposing that all other regulated to $37,500 per day, plus the amount of is deemed liable for a violation. parties could satisfy all of the periodic any economic benefit or savings Additionally, all presumptions of sampling and testing elements of their resulting from the violation, for liability are rebuttable. The proposed affirmative defenses to presumptive violations that occurred after January defenses are similar to the defenses liability by participating in the survey. 12, 2009. Today’s proposal would available to parties for violations of the As in other fuel regulations, branded subject any person who violates any of RFG and diesel sulfur regulations. We refiners would be subject to more the proposed requirements or believe that these defense elements set stringent standards for establishing a prohibitions to a civil penalty up to forth reasonably attainable criteria to defense because of the control such $37,500 for every day of each such rebut a presumption of liability. We are refiners have over branded downstream violation and the amount of the proposing that the affirmative defense parties. Under today’s rule, in addition economic benefit or savings resulting require a party to demonstrate all of the to other presumptive liability defense from the violation. elements, we are proposing that branded following: (1) The party did not commit We propose that a violation of the refiners would also be required to show or cause the violation; (2) the party has requirements in today’s notice would that the violation was caused by an PTDs indicating that the fuel was in constitute a separate day of violation for action by another person in violation of compliance at its facility; and (3) except each day the gasoline giving rise to the law, an action by another person in for retailers and wholesale purchaser- violation remains in the fuel’s violation of a contractual agreement consumers, the party conducted a distribution system. The length of time with the refiner, or the action of a quality assurance program. For parties the gasoline in question remains in the distributor not subject to a contract with other than tank truck carriers, we are distribution system would be deemed to the refiner for the transportation of the proposing that the quality assurance be twenty-five days unless there is gasoline. program would be required to include evidence that the fuel remained in its Based on experience with other fuels periodic sampling and testing of distribution system a lesser or greater programs, we believe that a presumptive gasoline-ethanol blends for their ethanol amount of time. These proposed penalty liability approach would increase the provisions are similar to those in the 41 For example, an ethanol manufacturer might cause a downstream exceedance of maximum 42 See section III.C. of today’s notice for a RFG, Tier 2 sulfur, and diesel sulfur ethanol content requirements if they did not add discussion of the ethanol content survey and programs. We request comment on the the required amount of denaturant. section IV for a discussion of the RVP survey. proposed penalty provisions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68061

IV. Other Measures To Ensure Having E10 and E15 at different RVP and help provide an affirmative defense Compliance levels in-use also raises the potential for upstream parties in the event of a that mixtures of the two at retail would violation downstream. We seek A. The 1.0 psi RVP Waiver for E10 cause the blend to exceed the comment on whether RVP survey Blends summertime RVP requirements. Many requirements should be included as part One concern that was raised in the retail stations only have two of the national ethanol survey proposed comment periods on the E15 waiver and underground storage tanks and those in section III.C. RFS2 NPRM in addition to stakeholder tanks typically contain regular and 2. RVP and E15 Underground Storage meetings prior to this proposal was premium grade fuels. Since, in many Tank Transition whether E15 would qualify for the cases, midgrade gasoline is made by 1.0 psi RVP waiver permitted under the blending regular and premium grade Another issue associated with the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(h) for gasoline, the possibility exists that a RVP standards is the potential conventional gasoline. As discussed in midgrade fuel blended from a high-RVP comingling of a higher RVP E10 fuel the partial waiver decision document, E10 fuel and a low-RVP E15 fuel would that received the 1.0 psi RVP waiver we believe that E15 blends with higher exceed summertime RVP requirements. with a lower RVP E15 that met volatility would cause vehicles to This fuel would not receive the 1.0 psi summertime RVP requirements in violate their evaporative emission RVP waiver and selling such a fuel underground storage tanks when a retail standards in-use. Consequently, the would violate RVP requirements. station decides to transition from selling waiver announced today is for E15 These RVP related complications E10 to E15. If the retail station does not blends that meet the summertime could be avoided by refiners producing completely remove all E10 from a tank gasoline volatility standards for a lower RVP blendstock for E10 as well. before E15 is added to the tank, the conventional gasoline without any While there are cost and supply retail station would create a fuel that 1.0 psi RVP waiver, and the regulatory considerations refiners and fuel violates RVP standards. The resulting provisions proposed today reflect this distributors may find it in their best blend would be above 10 vol% ethanol and would not qualify for the 1.0 psi decision. Furthermore, EPA interprets interest to do so given the flexibility it waiver, but would have an RVP above section 211(h)(4) of the CAA as limiting affords. Regardless, the Agency believes that it would be possible to help the requirement for E0 and E15. the 1.0 psi waiver to gasoline-ethanol Section 211(t) of the Clean Air Act, as alleviate some of these challenges with blends that contain 10 vol% ethanol, amended by the Energy Policy Act of the slight modifications to the PTDs and including limiting the provision 2005, allows retail stations to blend ‘‘ the national fuel survey requirements concerning deemed to be in full compliant RFG batches of non-ethanol ’’ discussed in Section III of this proposal. compliance to the same 10 vol% blended and ethanol-blended gasoline RFG already has similar requirements to blends. EPA implemented CAA section in storage tanks twice a year as long as those that we are proposing in today’s 211(h)(4) through 40 CFR 80.27(d) the duration of the blended period is no rulemaking, and given the effectiveness which provides that gasoline-ethanol longer than 10 consecutive calendar we have had with the RFG program, we blends that contain at least 9 vol% days. However, the authority granted to believe that the proposed approach ethanol and not more than 10 vol% the Agency for the transition of fuels in would be an effective means of allowing ethanol qualify for the 1.0 psi waiver of underground storage tanks was fuel manufacturers to ensure that the the applicable RVP standard. specifically limited to that case and we correct amount of ethanol was blended Nevertheless, we seek comment on do not believe this provision authorizes into the appropriate blendstock or whether section 211(h) of the CAA a blending down of E10 and E15 over finished fuel with only slight additions could be interpreted such that E15 is time in non-RFG areas. eligible for the RVP provisions in at minimal costs. We believe that these We seek comment on the issue of tank section 211(h)(4) and whether this PTD proposals are appropriate under transition from E10 to E15 fuels and if would have any impact on our E15 our authority under sections 208 and there are ways that the Agency could waiver decision. 114 of the Clean Air Act. address this issue. In order to introduce a fuel that meets 1. National RVP Survey both the Federal summertime RVP B. Credit for RFG Downstream standards and contains between 10 and In section III.C., we described our Oxygenate Blending 15 vol% ethanol, fuel refiners would proposal for a national E15 labeling and Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.69, refiners of have to create a fuel or blendstock that ethanol content survey that is intended RBOB are permitted to take credit for has approximately 1.0 psi lower RVP to ensure that fuel pumps would be downstream oxygenate blending toward than a fuel or blendstock intended for properly labeled if retail stations chose compliance with RFG standards. To do E10 due to the interaction between to sell E15. In order to determine if the so the refiner must direct the gasoline volatility and ethanol when proposed labeling requirements are downstream oxygenate blender on the blended. Oxygenate blenders would being met and the ethanol content is PTD to add a particular type and need to know the RVP of a blendstock consistent with the label, fuel sampling amount of oxygenate. However, these or have the intended ethanol content of and testing would be required to provisions may require some a blendstock be specified on the PTD to determine the ethanol content. Since reconsideration. In light of the addition ensure that they know the correct fuel refiners will have difficulty of E15 to the RFG marketplace, it may amount of ethanol that should be ensuring that downstream summertime be more difficult to ensure that 15 vol% blended into a fuel. If an oxygenate RVP requirements are met in non-RFG ethanol is in fact added downstream if blender or retail station blended more areas, adding testing for RVP to this the RBOB would also meet all other 43 than 10 vol% ethanol into a fuel or survey would be a low-cost approach finished gasoline specifications with the blendstock produced with the to enforcing downstream RVP standards addition of just 10 vol% ethanol. expectation of taking advantage of the Oxygenate blenders could also be left in 43 Based EPA discussions with industry, the costs 1 psi waiver that applies to E10, the of for RVP survey requirements as part of the E15 the untenable position of having a resulting blend would be in violation of labeling survey would add approximately $200,000 supply of RBOB for E15 blending and an summertime RVP standards. dollars per year to the total costs of the survey. inability to blend more than 10 vol%

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

ethanol. We request comment regarding refinery. Refiners of conventional program. The NOX emission how the final regulation should address gasoline may comply separately for each performance requirements for RFG and this issue. For example, the regulation refinery, or they may aggregate their conventional gasoline have not been could limit the refiner’s claimed ethanol refineries. Importers comply with both required since January 1, 2007 when the content to 10 vol% ethanol unless: (A) the RFG and conventional gasoline Tier2 gasoline average sulfur standard of The final blend would not comply with standards for the aggregate of the 30 ppm took effect (see 40 CFR all gasoline specifications (e.g., octane) gasoline they import during the year. 80.101(c)(3)(i)). Finally, beginning January 1, 2011, the air toxics emission without the addition of 15 vol% B. The Complex Model ethanol, or (B) until such time as the standards for gasoline will be deemed RBOB surveys for a particular RFG area To measure compliance with the RFG met by compliance with the new indicates that there is a sufficient, stable and anti-dumping standards, the MSAT2 nationwide benzene standard market demand for E15. We request emissions performance of gasoline is for gasoline, the volatility standard, and comment on this and other approaches calculated using a model, called the sulfur standard (see 40 CFR 80.41(e)(2) to resolve this issue. Complex Model, which predicts the and (3)). The result is that beginning emissions level of each regulated January 1, 2011, only the VOC equation V. Modification of the Complex Model pollutant based on the measured values in the Complex Model will continue to A. Background of RFG Requirements of certain gasoline properties. These be binding and only for RFG. For properties are: Aromatics, olefins, conventional gasoline, there are no VOC Reformulated gasoline (RFG) is sulfur, Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), performance standards; only RVP limits. gasoline that is required to be sold in benzene, oxygen and distillation points, Thus, compliance with the anti- certain parts of the country, and is as well as the content of ethanol, ETBE, dumping regulations does not require required to be reformulated to meet TAME and MTBE. Refiners and use of the Complex Model to evaluate certain performance standards for importers are required to measure these VOC emissions. emissions of smog forming and toxic air properties in each batch of gasoline they The one exception to this is small pollutants. In 1990 Congress amended produce or import, using a prescribed refiners that take advantage of the the CAA to require that RFG be sold in test method, and calculate the emissions option for delayed compliance with the cities with the worst ozone pollution level of each pollutant for each batch of MSAT2 benzene standard until January problems. In addition, other cities with gasoline using the Complex Model. The 1, 2015. They would still need the significant smog problems were emissions level as computed by the Complex Model for air toxics emission provided the opportunity to voluntarily Complex Model is compared to the performance compliance during this opt-in to the RFG program. RFG is baseline emissions for each pollutant, interim period. However, since no small currently used in portions of 17 States and the percent reduction is then refiners are currently producing RFG, it and the District of Columbia. About calculated. The standards for VOC, NOX would only be for CG. For CG, since 30% of gasoline sold in the U.S. is and toxics are stated in terms of percent refiners typically certify CG as E0, with reformulated. In the 1990 Amendments, reductions from the baseline. Thus, for oxygenate blended downstream, they Congress also required that fuel to comply with the standards, the should be unaffected by the increase in conventional gasoline (CG, or non-RFG) percent reduction computed by the ethanol content from E10 to E15. sold in the rest of the country become Complex Model must be equal to or Therefore, it appears that the only no more polluting than gasoline sold in greater than the standard for each equation that needs to be modified in 1990. Often referred to as ‘‘anti- pollutant. Under the Clean Air Act, the Complex Model to allow refiners dumping’’, this requirement ensures that baseline emissions must be based on and importers to certify gasoline refiners do not ‘‘dump’’ into 1990 vehicle technology, not current containing E15 after January 1, 2011 is conventional gasoline fuel components fleets, nor off-road equipment. the VOC equation. that are restricted in RFG and that For gasoline to be sold in the U.S., it Because emissions performance at increase environmentally harmful must comply with the standards. issue is specified in the Act as the emissions. Refiners are therefore required to certify emissions performance of 1990 vehicle EPA introduced the RFG program in that their fuel meets the standards by technology, we are not able to use 1995, as required by the CAA. The RFG using the Complex Model. Currently, current emission test data on motor program established emissions the equations in the model are limited vehicles using E15 gasoline as a basis performance standards for volatile to an oxygen content of no more than for evaluating appropriate changes to organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen 4.0% by weight in gasoline, which is the the VOC equation. The test results from oxides (NOX), and toxics. These maximum amount of oxygen in gasoline today’s vehicle fleet would not standards are based on percent containing 10 vol% ethanol, or E10.44 In represent the 1990 vehicle technology reductions from the average emissions order for refiners to produce gasoline required to calculate the emission of these pollutants in 1990 model year that will contain 15 vol% ethanol, the baseline. Instead, we relied on a study vehicles operated on a specified model must be modified to predict the conducted in 1994 by Guerrieri, et al., baseline gasoline. The program required effect of the additional oxygen. that examined the exhaust emissions an oxygen minimum standard of 2.0% The applicability of the Complex from 1990 vehicles using gasoline with by weight, however the Energy Policy Model to gasoline certification has ethanol levels varying from 0 to 40 Act of 2005 removed that requirement. become limited as EPA’s more recent volume percent.45 Figure V.B–1 shows For conventional gasoline, the program clean gasoline standards take effect and data reported by Guerrieri et al.46 The establishes emissions standards for provide even greater emission figure shows the average values of exhaust toxics and NOX designed to reductions beyond those of the RFG ensure that an individual refinery’s or 45 Guerrieri, David Al., Peter Caffrey, and importer’s gasoline will not have higher 44 Because the percent by weight of oxygen in the Venkatesch Rao; Investigation Into the Vehicle levels of these pollutants than the fuel varies depending on the density of the fuel, the Exhaust Emissions of High Percentage Ethanol limit in the Complex Model is currently 4.0% by Blends’’; SAE Technical Paper Series; 950777; refinery’s or importer’s 1990 gasoline. weight to reflect the maximum amount of oxygen presented at International Congress and Exposition; Refiners of RFG must comply with the associated with E10. In most fuels, however, this Detroit, Michigan; March, 1995. RFG standards separately for each volume is equivalent to 3.5% by weight oxygen. 46 Guerrieri, et al.; op. cit.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68063

hydrocarbon emissions (representative effect between E10 and E15, the linear E10, for 1990 technology motor of VOC) at several ethanol levels regression results presented in the study vehicles. This outcome is consistent relevant to this discussion, as well as (also shown in Figure V.B–1) indicate a with our engineering judgment. As the uncertainty bars at each value. The decreasing trend in hydrocarbon discussed in Section VI.C the general study data showed that on average emissions with increased ethanol in trend across vehicles of all ages is that exhaust hydrocarbon emissions gasoline. Based on the study findings, the addition of ethanol to gasoline tends increased from E10 to E12, but then we are reasonably confident that the to lower VOC emissions due to its decreased beyond E12. While the study average VOC emissions for ethanol enleanment effect during open loop does not provide sufficient data to blends greater than E10 up to and operation. determine the precise VOC emission including E15 will be no worse than for

Because the data available on 1990 of ethanol content. We request comment performance of their emission control vehicles is limited, we are not proposing on whether the data and rationale devices or systems, which would likely to change the Complex Model to discussed above are an appropriate basis lead to increased HC, CO and/or NOX indicate decreasing VOC emissions with for the proposed adjustment to the emissions. increased ethanol content between E10 Complex Model to account for E15. Light-duty motor vehicles (i.e., and E15. Instead, we are proposing to passenger cars and light-duty trucks) VI. Why are we proposing misfueling modify the application of the Complex have evolved significantly over time, mitigation measures? Model equations to treat VOC exhaust mainly in response to increasingly emissions at ethanol levels greater than In previous sections we proposed to tighter emission standards, but also to E10 and up to E15 the same as for E10. prohibit the use of E15 in MY2000 and improve fuel economy, vehicle We are therefore proposing in today’s older motor vehicles, heavy-duty driveability, and vehicle durability. The rule to modify the Complex Model to gasoline engines and vehicles, primary advancements in emissions allow up oxygen levels up to 5.8% by motorcycles, and all nonroad products control have been in the control of the weight to be input to the model but that (which includes marine applications). air-to-fuel (A/F) ratio matched with the VOC emissions effects would be This section provides the technical advancements in catalyst formulations modeled the same as if it contained rationale supporting this decision. As and designs with each new generation 4.0% by weight oxygen.47 This will discussed below, it appears that the of motor vehicles. Today’s motor provide flexibility for the Complex unique physical and chemical vehicles are far more sophisticated and Model to be used over a broader range properties of ethanol may impact these up to 99% less polluting than they were products when they are using gasoline- in the 1970s while also more tolerant of 47 The level of 5.8% by weight of oxygen is the ethanol blends, particularly as many of variables like fuel composition (i.e., potential maximum oxygen level associated with E15 due to lighter than average gasoline these products were not designed to RVP, oxygen content). However, components. The typical weight of oxygen in E15 operate on such fuels. The potential MY2000 and older light-duty motor is 5.2%. impacts could be the impairment of the vehicles have not benefitted from these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP04NO10.001 68064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

advancements in technology and could MY2001–2006 light-duty motor ethanol expansion in the United States. experience combustion and material vehicles. First, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, compatibility problems leading to A. History of Ethanol Use in the U.S. ethanol was used as a gasoline increased emissions if operated on E15. oxygenate (along with MTBE) to help While motorcycles (highway and off- Any assessment of the impacts of E15 reduce carbon monoxide (CO) emissions highway), heavy-duty gasoline engines use in vehicles, engines, and equipment in various CO nonattainment areas. and vehicles, and nonroad products must begin with an understanding of the Then, ethanol was used as part of the have also evolved over time, since they degree to which they were designed for requirements for reformulated gasoline have not been regulated as long, and the use of low level gasoline-ethanol in the worst ozone nonattainment areas have much more diverse applications, blends. E10 is currently blended in beginning in the mid 1990s. significant quantities in most gasoline they do not reflect the same level of Tax subsidies and environmental advanced technology across the board as distributed and sold in most States, but this was not always the case. Most auto programs resulted in the growth of the do today’s light-duty motor vehicles. fuel ethanol market such that by the late Consequently, their engines and manufacturers today support the use of E10 in their vehicles and engines since 1990s, E10 represented slightly more emission control systems may also be their designs have evolved over time in than 10% of gasoline nationwide. By impacted in ways that affect emission response to the growing use of E10 1999, 35 States were blending ethanol performance if operated on E15. across the country. However, the total into at least a portion of their gasoline.49 On the other hand, the Agency fleet is made up of old and new However, its use remained concentrated believes that newer light-duty motor vehicles, engines, and equipment with in the Midwest, e.g., Illinois, Ohio, and vehicles (vehicles designed to meet Tier varying technologies and therefore Minnesota. Ethanol did not begin 2 emissions standards) were designed varying compatibility with gasoline- expanding significantly beyond the with significantly more robust emission ethanol blends. Midwest until the early 2000s when controls and fuel system components to Ethanol and ethanol-gasoline blends States started banning the use of Methyl regularly use gasoline-ethanol blends. have a long history as automotive fuels Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) due to For MY2001–2006 light-duty motor in the United States. Inexpensive crude groundwater concerns. Ethanol quickly vehicles, EPA does not have enough oil prices kept ethanol from making a became the primary oxygenate in the data on which to base a decision at this significant presence in the gasoline market. With the removal of the point in time. DOE testing of MY2001– transportation sector until the end of the RFG oxygen mandate by the Energy 2006 light-duty motor vehicles is 20th century when tax subsidies and Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), MTBE was ongoing and will factor into the environmental programs helped to spur removed from gasoline almost entirely Agency’s decisions for the final rule. growth. On November 9, 1978, the U.S. by 2006. Ethanol replaced MTBE, passed the Energy Tax Act which The sections that follow discuss in broadening the fuel’s use into defined ‘‘gasohol’’ as a blend of gasoline more detail the history of ethanol use in California, the East Coast, and other with 10% alcohol by volume (excluding the U.S., the chemical and physical RFG areas. From 2000 to 2006, the share alcohol made from petroleum, natural of gasoline containing 10% ethanol by differences between ethanol and gas or coal) and offered the fuel an gasoline, and how these differences, volume (‘‘E10 market share’’) more than excise tax exemption to encourage its doubled as shown in Figure VI.A.-1. especially combustion enleanment and use.48 While the ethanol tax subsidy has According to fuel survey and material compatibility, could impact been modified over the years, certification data, ethanol is the only exhaust and evaporative components conventional ethanol continues to oxygenate currently used in any and emissions. Specifically, we discuss receive a $0.45/gallon tax credit and significant quantity today. the ability of the following groups of cellulosic ethanol is eligible for a $1.01/ vehicles and engines to handle E15: (1) gallon credit. MY2000 and older light-duty motor Environmental programs have also 49 EIA, Motor Gasoline Outlook and State MTBE vehicles; (2) heavy-duty gasoline Bans, Table 2, available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ been an important contributor to emeu/steo/pub/special/mtbeban.html and FHWA, engines and vehicles; (3) motorcycles; Estimate Use of Gasohol, 1999, available at: (4) nonroad products; (5) MY2007 and 48 Refer to the Energy Tax Act of 1978, Public Law http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs99/tables/ newer light-duty motor vehicles; and (6) 95–618, enacted November 9, 1978. mf33e.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68065

Since 2006, E10’s market share has EISA volumes.50 While there are a While vehicles, engines, and equipment continued to rise. The increase can be number of renewable fuels that can be in the Midwest have been experiencing attributed primarily to rising crude oil used to meet the RFS2 requirements, E10 use for a number of years, this is not prices which led to very favorable EPA projects a large percentage will the case in most of the country. Even in ethanol blending economics over most come from ethanol. According to EIA, much of the Midwest, E10 has become of the past 4–5 years, but also to the ethanol comprised 9.4% of total U.S. the dominant fuel only recently. It took market certainty provided by the motor gasoline sales during the first half many years for States to reach 25% E10 51 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) of 2010. In other words, over 90% of saturation and even longer for States to established by EPAct and later modified motor gasoline sold today is E10. reach 50% E10 saturation. As shown in As E10’s market share has increased by the Energy Independence and Figure VI.A–3, 23 States (including the over the last few years, its prevalence Security Act of 2007 (EISA). EPAct has also expanded nationwide. A map District of Columbia) just recently required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable showing today’s estimated E10 reached 50% saturation between 2008 52 fuel to be blended into transportation penetration by State is provided in and 2009. Alaska is the only State fuel by 2012. In 2007, EISA expanded Figure VI.A–2. This State-level without significant ethanol blending. the RFS to 36 billion gallons by 2022. information, provided by HART Energy According to HART, only 10% of On March 26, 2010, EPA promulgated Consulting, does not reflect California’s Alaska’s gasoline is currently comprised final RFS2 regulations to implement the recent shift from 5.7 to 10 vol% ethanol. of E10.

50 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010). 52 1999–2004 state E10 marketshares based on Emission Inventory Estimates. 2007–2009 based on 51 Refer to EIA Monthly Energy Review FHWA ethanol and EIA total motor gasoline sales. HART estimates. September 2010 (Tables 10.3 and 3.7c, 2005 ethanol usage based on EIA’s National respectively).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP04NO10.002 68066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP04NO10.003 EP04NO10.004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68067

B. Chemical and Physical Differences redesign their gasoline engines to be Gasoline quality specifications are Between Ethanol and Gasoline more compatible with blends of gasoline provided by ASTM D4814,54 while and ethanol up to 10 vol%. ethanol quality specifications for Understanding the chemical and Gasoline is a complex mixture of blending in gasoline are provided by physical differences between gasoline several hundred hydrocarbon molecules ASTM D4806.55 Several properties of and ethanol is helpful in determining (organic compounds containing carbon ethanol, as compared to typical gasoline how increased ethanol concentrations in and hydrogen) ranging in carbon and toluene, are listed below in Table gasoline may impact vehicle and engine number from four to twelve that are VI.B–1. Since toluene is a common technologies and whether emission produced from various refinery streams. hydrocarbon used as an octane enhancer differences may occur. Throughout most In contrast, fuel ethanol contains only in gasoline, it is included below for of the 20th century, engines and one kind of molecule with two carbon 56 vehicles were designed to run on atoms. Alcohols such as ethanol are comparison purposes. Ethanol has gasoline. Engines can and have been derived from hydrocarbons by replacing been used successfully in gasoline for designed for the use of ethanol, and in the hydrogen atoms in their parent several decades as a volumetric fuel the case of FFVs, have been designed to hydrocarbon (ethane is the parent of extender due to its beneficial Research operate effectively on both.53 Over the ethanol) with one or more hydroxyl Octane Number and Motor Octane last couple of decades, manufacturers groups containing oxygen and Number blending values. have also taken varying steps to hydrogen.

TABLE VI.B–1—PROPERTIES OF ETHANOL, GASOLINE AND TOLUENE 57 58 59

Property Gasoline (typical properties) Toluene Ethanol

Chemical Formula ...... Mixed C4 to C12 Hydrocarbons ...... C7H8 ...... CH3CH2OH. Molecular Weight ...... 95–115 ...... 92 ...... 46. Oxygen Weight Percent ...... 0 ...... 34.7. Boiling Point °F ...... 85–437 ...... 231 ...... 173. Specific Gravity 60 °F/60 °F ...... 0.72–0.78 ...... 0.87 ...... 0.79. Research Octane Number ...... 91–100 ...... 111 ...... 111. Motor Octane Number ...... 82–92 ...... 95 ...... 92. (R + M)/2 ...... 87–92 ...... 103 ...... 102. Net Heat of Combustion BTU/Gal 60 ...... 117,000 ...... 126,000 ...... 76,000. Latent Heat of Vaporization BTU/Gal 61 ...... 800 ...... 1130 ...... 2600. Solubility in Water, gram/100g H2O ...... Trace ...... Trace ...... Infinite. Stoichiometric A/F Ratio, Mass Air/Mass Fuel ...... 14.6 ...... 13.5 ...... 9.0. Vapor Flammability Limits Percent by Volume ...... 0.6–8 ...... 3.5–15. Vapor Pressure @ 100 °F psi ...... 9–13 ...... 2.5.

Because gasoline is composed of This adjustment will ensure that the E15 are possible that may not have been different molecules of different lengths, resulting blend meets a target experienced with E10 in the past. it has a boiling range as well as a specification for properties such as The following sections describe in distillation curve. On the other hand, volatility and octane rating. On the greater detail the chemical and physical because ethanol is composed of a single other hand, some property differences differences of gasoline and ethanol, type of molecule, it has a single boiling between E10 and E15 are inherent to the particularly focusing on the effects of point and lacks the characteristic ethanol fraction and cannot be these differences when ethanol is distillation curve of gasoline. Functional accounted for by blending. For example, blended with gasoline. This discussion groups such as ethanol’s hydroxyl group the impact of E15 versus E10 on engine lays the foundation for vehicle and generally determine how a molecule combustion is a potential concern. How engine specific discussion in sections will behave. a vehicle or engine adapts to combust VI.C.–VI.I. The question with the use of E15 is fuels with different ethanol 1. Impact on the A/F Ratio— whether or not the vehicles, engines, concentrations depends on the vehicle Combustion Enleanment equipment, and products that are hardware and software control designed for the properties of gasoline strategies. Vehicles and engines When gasoline is combusted in an and/or E10 are also designed for the operating on E15 may have hotter engine, the stoichiometric A/F ratio (i.e., properties of E15. Some property exhaust temperatures than the same the ideal ratio for complete combustion differences between E10 and E15 may vehicles and engines running on E10. In of the fuel and air into carbon dioxide be dealt with in fuel blending such that addition, material compatibility is time, and water vapor) is approximately 14.7 the base gasoline can be adjusted in temperature, and concentration times the mass of air to fuel (14.7:1). For advance to accommodate the ethanol. dependent. Some material effects with gasoline, any mixture less than 14.7:1 is

53 In the U.S., the most common FFVs are also 56 SAE J1297, revised July, 2007, Surface Vehicle 59 SAE 912413 ‘‘An Overview of the Technical known as ‘‘E85’’ vehicles. They are designed to run Information Report, Alternative Fuels. Implications of Methanol and Ethanol as Highway on gasoline or a blend of up to 85 vol% ethanol 57 SAE J1297, revised July, 2007, Surface Vehicle Motor Vehicle Fuels,’’ Frank Black, U.S. (E85) and are equipped with modified components Information Report, Alternative Fuels. Note: The Environmental Protection Agency, Research designed specifically to be compatible with Triangle Park, N.C. ethanol’s chemical properties. values in Table 1 should be considered for relative 60 54 ASTM D4814, Standard Specification for comparisons only. BTU/Gal = 279 J/L Automotive Spark Ignition Fuel. 58 SAE 861178, ‘‘The Properties and Performance 61 BTU/Gal = 279 J/L 55 ASTM D4806, Standard Specification for of Modern Automotive Fuels,’’ P. Dorn, A.M. Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline Mourao, and S. Herbstman, Texaco Research for Use in Automotive Spark Ignition Fuel. Center, Beacon, N.Y.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68068 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

considered to be a rich mixture (excess can lead to changes in exhaust gasoline to separate into two layers. fuel), and any mixture more than 14.7:1 temperatures which may affect catalyst However, the presence of ethanol in is a lean mixture (excess air/oxygen) durability, and, especially in the case of gasoline will allow more water to be given ideal test fuel and complete nonroad products, engine durability, absorbed by the gasoline-ethanol blend combustion. The addition of oxygenates causing an increase in emissions. In before phase separation occurs. Some such as ethanol (with its hydroxyl addition, combustion instability from level of water carried through the fuel group) to gasoline alters the lean mixtures, which can cause misfire, distribution system is generally stoichiometric A/F ratio and therefore can then lead to accelerated catalyst acceptable and likely unavoidable given affects combustion. Engines/vehicles performance degradation or damage. fuel exposure to moisture and humidity equipped with feedback controls can in normal dispensing and storage, either 2. Polarity and Affinity for Water adjust the A/F ratio to stoichiometric at the fuel station or on-board. However, conditions—around 14.0:1 for E10 and Water is one of the most polar excessive water in the fuel can lead to 13.8:1 for E15 (the ratio is lower as molecules (an uneven distribution of phase separation that can in turn cause ethanol contains oxygen so less air is charge with the hydrogen atoms being stalling or permanent damage to most needed). However, for gasoline engines positively charged and the oxygen atom internal combustion engines. that do not have the ability to react to negatively charged) while ethanol is 3. Material Compatibility the desired stoichiometric A/F ratio for only slightly polar and a hydrophilic a different fuel (e.g., gasoline-ethanol (meaning water loving) molecule The hydroxyl group of ethanol also blends), combustion is enleaned. E10 because of its hydroxyl group. Ethanol reacts with natural rubber materials. would result in approximately 4% dissolves in water when the two are Certain elastomers exposed to alcohols enleanment when compared with mixed together. Unlike ethanol, gasoline may swell or soften and lose strength.62 gasoline, E15 would result in is considered to be a non-polar and Some plastics and fiberglass can become approximately 6% enleanment. This hydrophobic hydrocarbon molecule brittle leading to cracks and leaks.63 means E10 and E15 have 4% and 6% which means that it does not attract Table VI.B.2.–1 shows the effects of more oxygen, respectively, than the water in the same way as ethanol does. gasoline and ethanol on some of the stoichiometric A/F ratio. As a result, gasoline and water are only many elastomers that have been Fuel metering components are sized very slightly soluble. If enough water is developed.64 As noted from this table, to deliver an A/F mixture that optimizes added to straight gasoline, two layers polyfluorocarbons have been shown to emission performance, power output, will form, known as phase separation: a be compatible with ethanol and ethanol fuel economy, and durability. If an water layer and a gasoline layer. blends. As discussed below in VI.C.2., engine is allowed to operate at a mixture Ethanol is soluble in gasoline though the physical interaction of ethanol with that is leaner than it is designed for (too to a lesser extent than it is in water. If certain elastomers also leads to much oxygen for a given amount of a gasoline-ethanol blend is saturated increased permeation of ethanol and fuel), it may run at a somewhat higher with water, a reduction in ambient hydrocarbons through the walls of combustion temperature. This in turn temperature may cause the ethanol and components made from such materials.

TABLE VI.B.2–1—EFFECTS OF GASOLINE AND ETHANOL ON ELASTOMERS

Volume swell (%) after 72 hour Elastomer immersion in: Gasoline Ethanol E10

Fluorocarbon (FKM) ...... 0 2 3 Polyester urethane ...... 11 19 37 Fluorosilicone (FMQ) ...... 14 6 18 Butadiene-acrylonitrile (NBR) ...... 43 8 51 Polyacrylate (ACM) ...... 44 101 136 Chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSM) ...... 49 1 56 Ethylene-propylenediene terpolymer (ePDM) ...... 137 13 124 Natural Rubber (NR) ...... 169 2 176 Adapted from SAE 912413 ‘‘An Overview of the Technical Implications of Methanol and Ethanol as Highway Motor Vehicle Fuels,’’ Frank Black, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

4. Corrosion could promote galvanic corrosion and demonstrated that aluminum is galvanic-couple effects between sensitive to corrosion from ethanol. In Ethanol can also contribute to electrochemically dissimilar alloys in addition, water in gasoline-ethanol corrosion due to galvanic coupling or the fuel system.65, 66 The National blends can cause corrosion of metallic the absorption of water. Alcohols are Ethanol Vehicle Coalition and the materials (such as brass, cast iron, better electrical conductors compared to Petroleum Equipment Institute have copper, and various types of steel) as the gasoline so gasoline-ethanol blends

62 SAE 912413 ‘‘An Overview of the Technical Environmental Protection Agency, Research T. Powell, Automotive Engineering Congress and Implications of Methanol and Ethanol as Highway Triangle Park, N.C. Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, February 24–28, Motor Vehicle Fuels,’’ Frank Black, U.S. 64 Discussion of additional studies evaluating the 1975. Environmental Protection Agency, Research impacts of gasoline-ethanol blends on materials 66 SAE 912413 ‘‘An Overview of the Technical used in vehicles and nonroad engines, vehicles, and Triangle Park, N.C. Implications of Methanol and Ethanol as Highway equipment can be found in the subsections that 63 SAE 912413 ‘‘An Overview of the Technical follow. Motor Vehicle Fuels,’’ Frank Black, U.S. Implications of Methanol and Ethanol as Highway 65 SAE 750124, ‘‘Racing Experiences with Environmental Protection Agency, Research Motor Vehicle Fuels,’’ Frank Black, U.S. Methanol and Ethanol-Based Motor-Fuel Blends,’’ Triangle Park, N.C.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68069

water/ethanol layer becomes acidic if 6. Volatility issues which may lead to other 67 phase separation occurs. The presence Fuel volatility is a measure of a fuel’s component failure. Ultimately, all of of water in the fuel distribution system vapor pressure or its tendency to these impacts may lead to exhaust and/ also provides a suitable habitat for the vaporize. When ethanol is blended into or evaporative emission increases. growth of microbes which excrete acids gasoline, the hydrogen bonding between 1. Enleanment that in turn are also detrimental to the ethanol molecules is weakened 68 metallic fuel storage systems. significantly and the alcohol MY2000 and older light-duty motor Contaminants in water may also impact ‘‘depolarizes.’’ This results in higher vehicles have much less sophisticated additives used in finished fuel that are Reid Vapor Pressures (RVP) for gasoline emissions control systems compared to designed to maintain the integrity of the containing ethanol. Ethanol’s effects on today’s motor vehicles and, as described 69, 70, 71 finished fuel. Because of these RVP have been well below, may experience conditions that corrosion concerns, actions are usually documented,72, 73, 74 where low level lead to both immediate emission taken to accommodate ethanol in ethanol blends, in general, will increase increases and increases over time if ethanol production, storage, and gasoline RVP by up to one pound per operated on E15. Vehicles produced distribution systems, as well as in square inch with the maximum effect prior to the mid-1980s were equipped vehicles and engines. Such actions occurring at approximately 3 vol% primarily with carbureted engines. The include the careful selection of ethanol concentration. The RVP of the A/F ratio of the carburetor is preset at materials and/or the use of appropriate base fuel will also influence just how the factory based on the expected ethanol compatible coatings on much increase will occur by the operating conditions of the engine such susceptible metal parts that come into addition of ethanol.75 Increases in RVP as ambient temperature, atmospheric contact with the ethanol fuel, as well as result in increased vapor generation and pressure, speed, and load. As a result, the use of corrosion and biocide increased evaporative emissions. carburetors have ‘‘open loop’’ fuel additives. Additionally, while ethanol at certain control which means that the air and 5. Solvency levels may raise the general volatility of fuel are provided at a specified, predetermined ratio that is not Ethanol can also act as a solvent for the gasoline-ethanol blend, because of automatically adjusted during motor various materials. As such, ethanol has ethanol’s single boiling point and high vehicle operation. As fuel composition historically been known to remove or latent heat of vaporization, the ethanol can vary, an engine with a carburetor dissolve components built up in the fuel fraction may cause combustion and open loop fuel control would never storage, handling and delivery systems difficulties and increased emissions know whether it achieved the desired (e.g. fuel tank, fuel lines, injectors, etc.). during the start of some spark-ignition A/F ratio. Since the motor vehicles at Once these components are loosened or engines when the engines are cold, this time operated ‘‘open loop’’ all of the partially dissolved, they are transported particularly at colder start temperatures. time with no ability to react for changes through the fuel system, and if Further, once the engine is hot, the excessive, may cause fuel filter, injector single boiling point can also cause in the A/F ratio, the addition of ethanol plugging or other component problems, difficulty in operating and starting a hot to the fuel tended to make the A/F ratio all of which can lead to poor operability engine as observed in older motor leaner—closer to stoichiometry, which and degraded emission performance. vehicles when ethanol first became had the immediate effect of reducing HC Gasoline-ethanol blends may also pick available. The ethanol would reach its and CO emissions, but increasing NOX up contaminants from storage tanks and boiling point in the fuel system and emissions. However, some of these older delivery trucks. The amount of build-up result in what is known as ‘‘vapor lock.’’ open loop systems already operate at the is related to a combination of fuel lean edge of combustion on current C. Model Year 2000 and Older Light- commercial fuels so an increase in composition properties and fuel usage Duty Motor Vehicles patterns (i.e., regular fuel usage versus ethanol may cause them to begin to infrequent, etc.). Non-automotive Ethanol impacts motor vehicles in misfire resulting in HC and CO equipment may experience fuel filter three primary ways. First, as discussed increases. plugging related more to extended in Section VI.B.1 above, ethanol enleans As a result of the Clean Air Act, EPA storage periods where gasoline can the A/F ratio which leads to increased established standards and measurement deteriorate and lead to more deposits exhaust gas temperatures and therefore procedures for exhaust, evaporative, and requiring a plugged fuel filter potentially incremental deterioration of refueling emissions of criteria replacement. emission control hardware and pollutants. From 1975 into the 1980s, performance over time. Second, over motor vehicles became equipped with 67 Nakaguichi, G.M., ‘‘Ethanol Fuel Modifications time, enleanment caused by ethanol can catalytic converters, first with catalysts for Highway Vehicle Use-Final Report,’’ U.S. DOE ultimately lead to catalyst failure. Third, capable of oxidizing HC and CO, and Contract EY–76–C–04–3683, NTIS document ALO– ethanol can cause material compatibility 3683–T1, Washington, DC July, 1989. then, in response to EPA’s ‘‘Tier 0’’ 68 Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion of standards, with three-way catalysts that 72 J.L. Keller, ‘‘Methanol and Ethanol Fuels for Galvanic Steel, Frederick J. Passman, PhD, also reduced NOX. Motor vehicles Modern Cars, 44th Refinery Mid-year Meeting/ Biodeterioration Control Associates, Princeton, NJ, produced in the 1980s and even more so USA., ASTM Workshop on Fuel Corrosivity, July, Session on Fossil Fuels in 1980’s, Reprint No. 08– 2010. 79, May 15, 1979. in the 1990s as a result of more stringent 69 Behavior of Corrosion Inhibitor Acids In Fuel/ 73 F.W. Cox, Physical Properties of Gasoline/ California and Federal (e.g., ‘‘Tier 1’’) Water Blends, Andrew McKnight, PhD, Innospec, Alcohol Automotive Fuels, Presented at the Alcohol standards evolved to incorporate more Newark, DE, USA, ASTM Workshop on Fuel Fuel Technology Conference, May 28–31, 1979. sophisticated and durable emission 74 SAE 912413 ‘‘An Overview of the Technical Corrosivity, July 2010. control systems. These systems 70 Interaction of Contaminants with Pipeline Implications of Methanol and Ethanol as Highway Corrosion Inhibitors, Joseph Stark, PhD, Baker Motor Vehicle Fuels,’’ Frank Black, U.S. generally included an onboard Hughes, Sugarland, TX, USA, ASTM Workshop on Environmental Protection Agency, Research computer, oxygen sensor, and electronic Fuel Corrosivity, July 2010. Triangle Park, N.C. fuel injection with more precise closed- 75 71 Diesel Soap—Formation and Related Problems, SAE 861178, ‘‘The Properties and Performance loop fuel compensation and therefore Richard Chapman, BP Global Fuel Technology, of Modern Automotive Fuels,’’ P. Dorn, A.M. Naperville, IL, USA, ASTM Workshop on Fuel Mourao, and S. Herbstman, Texaco Research A/F ratio control during more of the Corrosivity, July 2010. Center, Beacon, N.Y. engine’s operating range. However, even

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68070 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

with the use of closed loop systems exceed temperature thresholds will by some manufacturers may be more through the late 1990s, the emission deteriorate at rates higher than effective than others. control system and controls remained expected, compromising the motor The fuel trim has a limited range of fairly simple with a limited range of vehicle’s ability to meet the required adjustment in which it can continue to authority and were primarily designed emission standards over its full useful update the A/F ratio and maintain the to adjust for component variability (i.e., life. Extended catalyst exposure to fuel system at or near stoichiometry. For fuel pressure, injectors, etc.) and not for higher exhaust temperatures can MY2000 and older light-duty motor changes in the fuel composition. During accelerate catalyst thermal deactivation vehicles, the fuel trim range is generally this period, ethanol was only available mechanisms (e.g., sintering of active more limited than the range for newer in very limited areas of the US so the precious metal sites, sintering of oxygen light-duty motor vehicles, and MY2000 manufacturers’ designs of the emission storage materials, and migration of and older motor vehicles may use their controls and the durability of emission active materials into inert support full range of fuel trim adjustment to control hardware generally did not materials). While this damage can occur account for normal component account for the increased oxygen at a highly accelerated rate with a deterioration. Injectors, sensors and content of ethanol. As a result, this sudden change in temperature (e.g., changes to fuel pressure may shift with generation of vehicles certified to Tier 0 with a misfire allowing raw fuel to reach time and aging to use all of the fuel and early Tier 1 emission standards the catalyst), it is more likely to occur trim’s range of adjustment. The operated leaner on ethanol, causing over time from elevated exhaust additional oxygenate in E15 may immediate emission impacts (lower HC temperatures as may be experienced actually shift the A/F ratio more than and CO emissions, higher NOX with frequent or even occasional the earlier introduction of E10 if the emissions) and may have also exposure to E15. This deterioration may engine’s A/F ratio feedback cannot deteriorated at different rates when adversely affect a motor vehicle’s ability compensate because it has reached its exposed to ethanol. These designs to control emissions, particularly after adjustment limit. In short, MY2000 and continued to evolve during the early significant mileage accumulation. older motor vehicles are at risk of having insufficient thermal margins to period of the Tier 1 emission standards Some motor vehicles may be able to accommodate ethanol blends up to E15 as manufacturers and component manage catalyst temperatures by suppliers gained experience with due to the limits of their fuel trim range. compensating for the oxygen in the fuel Test data to confirm or refute vehicles in-use. However, the largest under all operating conditions, improvements to emission controls and concerns over the use of E15 in older including high loads. This is achieved vehicles is very limited in scope and hardware durability came after 2000 by using a closed-loop fuel system that with the introduction of several new content. The available data do not prove measures the A/F ratio and makes the or disprove the concerns, although there emission standards and durability appropriate corrections to maintain the are several studies that support the requirements forcing manufacturers to A/F ratio in the very tight ban of potential for long term durability issues better account for the implications of in- operation around stoichiometry consistent with engineering theory. use fuels on the evaporative and exhaust necessary for optimum catalyst Three studies—the CRC Screening emission control systems. performance and reductions in HC, CO, Study, DOE Pilot Study, and the Orbital While most motor vehicles are and NOX emissions. The part of the Study—discussed in section IV.A. operating today on E10, motor vehicles closed-loop fuel system that is highlight in particular the concern with operated on E15 will likely run even responsible for the correction to the MY2000 and older motor vehicles. The leaner than those operated on E10 A/F ratio is referred to as ‘‘fuel trim.’’ CRC Screening Study (E–87–1) was a depending on the motor vehicle The fuel trim adds or removes fuel to test program developed to look at the technology and operating conditions. the engine to maintain the required effects of mid-level ethanol blends on Enleaned combustion leads to an A/F ratio. If the measured A/F ratio has U.S. vehicles.76 This screening study increase in the temperature of the insufficient oxygen, or is ‘‘rich’’ was the first phase of a two-phase study exhaust gases. This increase in exhaust compared to what the engine needs, the evaluating the effects of mid-level gas temperatures has the potential to fuel trim will instruct the fuel injectors ethanol blends on emission control raise the temperatures of various to inject less fuel, making the A/F ratio systems. The purpose of this first phase exhaust system components (e.g., ‘‘leaner.’’ The opposite is true if the of the study was to identify vehicles exhaust valves, exhaust manifolds, measured A/F ratio has too much which used learned fuel trims to correct catalysts, and oxygen sensors) beyond oxygen and needs to inject more fuel for open loop air-fuel rations. Under the their design limits. However, based on a ‘‘richer’’ A/F ratio. The fuel trim is test program a fleet of 25 test vehicles past experience, the most sensitive generally comprised of two major parts, was identified and acquired with six of component is likely the catalyst, short term fuel trim and long term or those vehicles being MY2000 and older. particularly in older motor vehicles adaptive learned fuel trim. Learned fuel The study collected vehicle speed, with early catalyst technology. Catalyst trim, also known as adaptive fuel trim, oxygen sensor air-fuel-ratio, and catalyst durability is highly dependent on can also be applied to open loop temperature data for four fuels (E0, E10, temperature, time, and fuel gas operation such as high load or wide E15, and E20). The results of the three composition. Catalyst temperatures open throttle to alleviate the catalyst ethanol blended fuels compared to E0 must be controlled and catalyst temperature increases caused by showed that four of the six MY2000 and deterioration minimized during all operating on E15 fuel. However, while older vehicles tested failed to apply motor vehicle operation modes for the this strategy was more common in later long-term fuel trim to open loop catalyst to maintain high conversion model years closer to MY2000, it was operation in order to compensate for efficiency over the motor vehicle’s life. not consistently employed by all increasing ethanol levels. And that these This is particularly important during manufacturers. Some manufacturer high load operation of a motor vehicle models may have less range of authority 76 Mid-level Ethanol Blends Catalyst Durability where high exhaust gas temperatures are than others and some may require Study Screening (CRC Report: E–87–1), June 2009 (‘‘CRC Screening Study’’). http://www.crcao.com/ encountered and the risk for catalyst longer periods of time to adapt. Hence, reports/recentstudies2009/E–87–1/E–87– deterioration is highest. Catalysts that control algorithms and calibrations used 1%20Final%20Report%2007_06_2009.pdf

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68071

same four vehicles exhibited increased engineered’’ vehicles. Furthermore, it be too. However, since the effects would catalyst temperatures when operated on acknowledged potential emission be long term, it is difficult to assess E20 as compared to E0. While the increases in-use, but in the context of whether these motor vehicles subsequent DOE Catalyst Study the waiver decision highlighted that experienced any higher rates of concluded that this learned fuel trim they were likely within manufacturer deterioration or component failure on was not important for MY2007 and compliance margins. Finally, it drew E10. Furthermore, material newer motor vehicles because they are many of its conclusions only relative to compatibility with ethanol is time, durable (and therefore can handle E15) E10, not to E0. condition (e.g., temperature, pressure), as discussed in section IV.A, there was Hence, based on the limited data and concentration dependent, such that no such follow on program for MY2000 available and our engineering judgment, problems may occur with E15 that did and older motor vehicles so the we conclude that MY2000 and older not show up with E10. durability of these vehicles on E15 is motor vehicles have the potential to Moving from E10 to E15 reflects a unknown. experience conditions when operated 50% increase in the volume of ethanol Another study suggests that many on E15 which may ultimately lead to an present in gasoline. Therefore, since the MY2000 and older motor vehicles may increase in emissions. impacts of ethanol on materials are a also have emission exceedances if function of concentration, E15 has the operated on E15. In 2003, the Orbital 2. Material Compatibility Engine Company issued a report on the Data and information exist in the potential to have more significant findings of vehicle testing it completed literature regarding ethanol’s impacts on impacts than E10 if used in motor to assess the impact of E20 on the motor vehicle material compatibility. vehicles not equipped for it. For Australian passenger vehicle fleet. Engine, fuel system, and emission MY2000 and older motor vehicles, E15 While the Australian vehicles in this control materials (metals, plastics, and use may result in degradation of study were not representative of U.S. elastomers) must maintain their metallic and non-metallic components vehicles of the same model years, they integrity for motor vehicles to meet their in the fuel and evaporative emissions are similar to MY2000 and older U.S. exhaust and evaporative emissions control systems that can lead to highly motor vehicles with respect to standards. Material incompatibility can elevated hydrocarbon emissions from technology and emission standards. The result from the chemical reaction or both vapor and liquid leaks. Potential testing program covered vehicle physical interaction between a fuel and problems such as fuel pump corrosion performance and operability testing, material with which it comes into or fuel hose swelling would likely be vehicle durability testing, and contact. This can lead to emissions worse with E15 than historically with component material compatibility compliance problems not only E10, especially if motor vehicles will be testing, on nine different vehicle makes immediately upon using the new fuel or operating exclusively on it. Since or models, five vehicles from MY2001 fuel additive, but especially over time. ethanol historically comprised a much and four vehicles from MY1985 to In most cases one would expect any smaller portion of the fuel supply (see MY1993. Testing results showed materials incompatibility to show up in section VI.A.), in-use experience with increases in exhaust gas temperature in the emissions tests, but there may be E10 was often discontinuous or five of the nine vehicles tested with impacts that do not show up due to the temporary, while material effects are three showing increases in catalyst way the testing is performed or because time and exposure dependent. Thus, temperature. Enleanment was found to the tests simply do not capture the problems may surface with E15 that occur in six of the nine vehicles tested, effect. As a result, along with emissions have not surfaced historically in-use. with three having closed loop control— testing, materials compatibility is a key Additionally, leak detection diagnostics the old vehicles without closed loop factor in assessing the emissions did not appear until MY1996 and control all displayed enleanment. In durability of a fuel or fuel additive. enhanced evaporative test procedures general, the increase in exhaust gas Based on our engineering assessment, were not fully implemented until the temperature was found to follow those it appears that manufacturers took late 1990s. vehicles with enleanment. Furthermore, varying steps at different points in time In addition to potential vapor or one vehicle in the study experienced to transition the materials in their motor liquid leaks, ethanol is also known to catalyst degradation sufficient to make vehicle designs to be E10 compatible. facilitate permeation through the the tested vehicle no longer meet its Many in the mid-to-late 1980s took materials in the fuel system. Studies applicable Australian emission steps for E10 compatibility at least for have shown this to be a significant standards. the more immediate effects of ethanol source of increased emissions with EPA recently received a report by (e.g., the dissolving of certain gasoline-ethanol blends, especially on Ricardo 77 commissioned by the elastomers). Large parts suppliers began older motor vehicles. Following Renewable Fuels Association testing materials on gasoline-ethanol additional testing requirements as part specifically discussing the potential blends in the mid-to-late 1980s and of the Tier 2 motor vehicle emission impacts of E15 on MY1994–2000 light- early 1990s, but practices varied with standards beginning in 2004, materials duty motor vehicles. However, as manufacturer. At the same time, certain in newer motor vehicles have been able discussed in the decision document, it areas have now had E10 for a number to mitigate the permeation effects of sheds little new light on the potential of years and therefore motor vehicles in ethanol in the fuel, as discussed in the emission impacts of E15 on MY2000 these areas have experienced a much waiver decision document. However, as and older motor vehicles. While arguing higher frequency of ethanol exposure. shown in the Figure VI.C.2–1 below, that many MY1994–2000 motor vehicles This has led many to argue that ethanol permeation emissions from older model may be designed to be compatible with is compatible for all motor vehicles in year vehicles may be very high with E15, it did so only for ‘‘properly the in-use fleet and therefore E15 should ethanol blends.78 77 Ricardo Inc., Technical Assessment of the 78 Diurnal testing refers to a process for measuring Emission Vehicles (CRC Report: E–77–2), March Feasibility of introducing E15 Blended Fuel in U.S. evaporative emissions where a vehicle is placed in 2010, and Evaporative Emissions from In-Use Vehicle Fleet, 1994 to 2000 Model Years, 10 a sealed enclosure and the temperature varied over Vehicles: Test Fleet Expansion (CRC Report: E–77– September, 2010. EPA Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR– multiple cycles to simulate ambient day and night 2b), June 2010. 2010–0448. conditions in summertime. Enhanced Evaporative

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

As part of its waiver application, fuel sending unit and fuel pump of materials available and the overlap in Growth Energy submitted a series of combinations (‘‘Fuel Pumps Study’’ and use of the different materials over time, studies completed by the State of ‘‘Fuel Pump Endurance Study’’),83, 84 the study could not test all materials in Minnesota and the Renewable Fuels currently used in automotive, marine, the fleet, nor did it directly assign the Association (RFA) that investigated small engine, and fuel system materials tested to a vehicle generation materials compatibility of motor vehicle dispensing equipment for physical or or model year. Instead, the study engines and engine components using chemical effects due to ethanol.85 generalized that because ethanol was three test fuels: E0, E10, and E20 Results from the Minnesota study available in some parts of the U.S., these (‘‘Minnesota Compatibility Study’’).79 were mixed depending on if the materials were likely E10 compatible. The Minnesota Compatibility Study comparison was being made between However, these materials were used E20 and E10 or E20 and E0. Some looked at 19 metals (‘‘Metals Study’’),80 prior to the widespread use of ethanol materials were compatible with the eight elastomers (rubber materials) and therefore conceivably prior to many ethanol blends while some displayed (‘‘Elastomers Study’’),81 eight plastics manufacturer’s requirement for (‘‘Plastics Study’’),82 and 24 common larger property changes with the ethanol blends. Because of the immense variety prolonged exposure to ethanol and specifically not for gasoline-ethanol 79 ‘‘The Feasibility of 20 Percent Ethanol Blends 83 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Automotive Fuel Pumps blends above 10%. It is difficult to by Volume as a Motor Fuel;’’ State of Minnesota and and Sending Units;’’ Nathan Hanson, Thomas quantify the overall impact of changes Renewable Fuels Association. Devens, Colin Rohde, Adam Larson, Gary Mead, 80 in any material due to ethanol at E15 or ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Metals Used in Paul Steevens, and Bruce Jones; Minnesota State Automotive Fuel System Components;’’ Bruce University, Mankato; February 21, 2008. E20 levels and what those changes Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Mike 84 ‘‘An Examination of Fuel Pumps and Sending would mean to the older motor vehicle Timanus; Minnesota Center for Automotive Units During a 4000 Hour Endurance Test in E20;’’ Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; fleet, only that some portion of the fleet Gary Mead, Bruce Jones, Paul Steevens, Nathan may experience changes that could February 22, 2008. Hanson, and Joe Harrenstein, Minnesota Center for 81 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Elastomers Used in Automotive Research at Minnesota State University, result in accelerated component failures Automotive Fuel System Components;’’ Bruce Mankota; March 25, 2009. beyond what would be expected on E0 Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Chris 85 Effects assessed in the studies include: Pitting, or E10. In addition, it is important to Connors; Minnesota Center for Automotive surface texture change, discoloration, or loss of Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; mass for metals; appearance, volume, weight, note that the Minnesota Compatibility February 22, 2008. tensile strength, elongation, and hardness for Study assessed component parts using 82 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Plastic Automotive elastomers; mass loss or gain, volume loss or gain, laboratory bench tests rather than System Components;’’ Bruce Jones, Gary Mead, and tensile elongation, impact resistance, and tensile durability studies of whole motor Paul Steevens; Minnesota Center for Automotive strength for plastics; and corrosion and longevity as Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; measured by flow and pressure tests for pumps and vehicle fuel systems simulating ‘‘real February 21, 2008. sending units. world’’ motor vehicle use.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP04NO10.005 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68073

In addition to providing comments on While the magnitude of impact may 2 g/mi could be expected.91 This would the Minnesota Compatibility Study as vary by a few percent depending on the be equivalent to combined HC discussed in the waiver decision motor vehicle technology and how other emissions of 40 new cars today. While document, the Alliance commented that fuel properties change when ethanol is this kind of complete failure would engines need to be hardened for blended into gasoline, the relative likely be limited in nature, misfueled resistance to ethanol. Use of gasoline- magnitude and direction of the impacts motor vehicles may experience a ethanol blends in unhardened engines remains consistent for typical fuels.89 reduction in catalyst efficiency earlier can result in bore, ring, piston and valve The limited available data on E15 than intended, resulting in emissions seat wear. Deterioration of these suggests that this trend continues, and levels increased above current levels components can lead to compression is slightly more pronounced due to the and up to the uncontrolled engine-out and power loss, misfire and catalyst higher ethanol content. However, these levels presented above. damage. emission impacts are not the focus of Another area of concern related to Based on our review of the literature this proposal as their magnitude tends exhaust emissions is fuel pump and industry comments on the E15 to be within vehicle compliance malfunction occurring due to material waiver request, we believe that MY2000 margins (the difference between a incompatibility of higher ethanol and older light-duty motor vehicles vehicle’s actual emission certification content with parts such as plastic pump have the potential for increased material level and the standard). Rather, for this rotors, shaft seals or elastomeric tubing, degradation with E15 use. In addition, proposal, we have focused on long-term and increased corrosion of metallic or some MY2000 and older light-duty durability issues associated with E15, as electrical components. As described in motor vehicles may have been designed discussed in more detail below. The Section VI.B, ethanol increases the for only limited exposure to E10 while issue of immediate emission increases electrical conductivity of fuel, the oldest vehicles on the road pre-date for E15 is more properly addressed as increasing the likelihood that galvanic ethanol blends in the marketplace all part of the anti-backsliding study and corrosion of metal parts would occur. together. This potential for material rulemaking under section 211(v) of the Before outright failure, malfunctioning degradation may make the emissions Act. fuel pumps often provide inconsistent control and fuel systems more Sufficient data do not exist to predict fuel pressure for some period of time, susceptible to corrosion and chemical specific changes in emission rates for resulting in long crank (starting) times, reactions from E15 when compared to the various motor vehicle technologies misfires, and other erratic engine the E0 certification fuels for these motor due to long-term use of E15 blends. behavior. Should such conditions occur, vehicles and may ultimately increase However, with respect to exhaust they may cause increases in exhaust vehicle emissions, especially for emissions, if a catalyst were to be emissions and possible deterioration of MY2000 and older motor vehicles. damaged to the point of having no exhaust catalysts. significant remaining functionality, we In addition to the potential for 3. Motor Vehicle Population and exhaust emissions increases, Anticipated Emissions Impact could expect NOX emissions similar in magnitude to those in untreated engine- evaporative emissions are also expected There is a long history of test out exhaust (i.e., before treatment by the to increase, not only immediately due to programs that have been carried out on catalyst). If, in this situation, the fuel increased permeation (as discussed light-duty motor vehicles and trucks control system continued to operate in above), but also due to long-term E15 that have quantified the immediate closed-loop mode, NO emission levels use that may cause from increased emission impacts of blending ethanol X in the range of 2–4 g/mi would be corrosion of metallic fuel system up to 10 vol% into gasoline. These test expected, or approximately ten times components and accelerated programs, dating back to the earliest the typical emissions rate for a properly deterioration of elastomeric hoses and days of gasoline-ethanol blends, have operating 1990s-era motor vehicle and seals. Corrosion may result in vapor or found that the oxygen content of ethanol about 60 times that of new cars today.90 liquid leaks, depending on where in the enleans the A/F ratio in motor vehicles Similarly, loss of catalyst function could fuel system the corrosion is located. during open-loop operation, causing a also cause significant HC emission Many types of elastomers used in o- decrease in HC and CO emissions, but rings and fuel lines swell or crack when increases, where levels on the order of also results in a corresponding increase exposed to ethanol, resulting in in NOX emissions. These studies have increased permeation of vapor or liquid conclusions of CRC E–74b report (e.g., Figure ES– been used to develop emission models, 2). Fuels properties evaluated were based on market leaks. Elastomeric seals on older motor such as the EPA Predictive Models 86 averages and were as follows: E0 had aromatics vehicles may already be brittle and incorporated into the Agency’s MOVES content of 29.5 vol%, a T50 of 215 °F, a T90 of 325 weakened from age. Exposure to E15 ° model,87 that have been thoroughly peer F, and an RVP of 8.9 psi and E10 had aromatics may produce accelerated failures of content of 24.9 vol%, a T50 of 202 °F, T90 of 325 reviewed. The result is that for a typical °F, and an RVP of 8.9 psi. Other parameters not these elastomeric components. E10 blend of gasoline, exhaust NMHC mentioned here were assumed to be held constant Though it is difficult to quantify the emissions have been found to decrease between the blends. impacts of these types of evaporative 89 by about 5%, and NOX emissions to Results based on data mostly from vehicle component failures, a recent evaporative 88 models that predated the Tier 2 emission standards, emissions study produced some increase by about 6%, relative to E0. so several recent test programs have been focused on Tier 2 vehicles that will soon make up the relevant data. During the program, a 86 A detailed description of the development of majority of the in-use fleet. motor vehicle with a fuel system leak the EPA Predictive Models is available in a 90 See ‘‘Effects of Gasoline Composition on due to an o-ring failure produced Technical Support Document: ‘‘Analysis of Vehicle Engine-Out and Tailpipe Hydrocarbon between 23–26 times more gasoline California’s Request for Waiver of the Reformulated Emissions—The Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Gasoline Oxygen Content Requirement for Research Program’’, SAE Paper No. 920329. See also vapor during a pair of diurnal tests than California Covered Areas’’, EPA420–R–01–016, June ‘‘Engine-out and Tail-Pipe Emission Reduction 2001. Technologies of V–6 LEVs’’, SAE Paper No. 980674. 91 See ‘‘Effects of Gasoline Composition on 87 The Agency’s MOVES model has undergone A vehicle not operating in closed-loop mode may Vehicle Engine-Out and Tailpipe Hydrocarbon extensive peer review and testing, and incorporates emit more or less NOX depending on combustion Emissions—The Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement the EPA Predictive Models. behavior. During the 1990s, Federal emission Research Program’’, SAE Paper No. 920329. See also 88 These effects are based the EPA Predictive standards for NOX dropped from 1 g/mi to 0.4 g/ ‘‘Engine-out and Tail-Pipe Emission Reduction Models and are generally consistent with mi. Technologies of V–6 LEVs’’, SAE Paper No. 980674.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68074 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

a properly-functioning new motor (ORVR) requirements, suggesting this fleet today,94 nearly 73 million or one- vehicle meeting current standards.92 may mitigate the effect of vapor space third are MY2000 and older light-duty The study also placed very small leaks.93 motor vehicles, and it is these motor simulated leaks (essentially pin holes) Thus, we may conclude that even vehicles for which the effects of E15 are in gas caps of three motor vehicles, small vapor space leaks occurring in uncertain but indicate the potential for representative of what could occur as a older motor vehicles (before ORVR was anywhere from small to significant result of tiny corrosion sites in the vapor required) have the potential to result in emission increases from the space of the fuel tank. Diurnal tests were large increases in HC emissions. deterioration of the emissions control performed to compare the emissions For more discussion on potential system over time. As discussed above, if with and without the leaks. The evaporative issues, refer to the Waiver motor vehicles experience engine or MY1996 motor vehicle produced 54 Decision document Section IV.A.3 that emission component failure, the times more evaporative emissions with was also released today. the simulated leak, while the MY2001 Table V1.C.3–1 below shows the potential exists for very elevated and 2004 motor vehicles produced two projected population of motor exhaust and/or evaporative system and three times more vapors, vehicles—passenger cars and light-duty emissions rates. If only a fraction of the respectively. The study authors point trucks in the fleet—by model year for fleet were to experience problems with out that the two newer motor vehicles 2011. According to this information, of E15, that would still be a large number had tank vent systems designed to meet the total estimated 225 million cars and of motor vehicles with a potentially onboard refueling vapor recovery trucks that operate on gasoline in the significant impact on in-use emissions.

TABLE VI.C.3–1—PROJECTED POPULATION OF CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS BY MODEL YEAR IN 2011

Cars and trucks Model year Cars Light trucks combined Cumulative total

2000 and earlier ...... 41,548,800 32,162,084 73,710,884 73,710,884 2001–2006 ...... 46,567,413 38,594,752 85,162,165 158,873,049 2007–2011 ...... 39,068,213 26,755,598 65,823,812 224,696,860

Total ...... 127,184,425 97,512,435 224,696,860 Source: EPA’s vehicle certification data and Mobile Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model.

D. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and E. Motorcycles some of the more expensive high Vehicles performance highway motorcycles Motorcycles come in many different began to use electronic fuel injection Given its limited market, heavy-duty sizes, styles and applications. The (EFI) to manage the A/F ratio. While EFI gasoline engines and vehicles have not biggest distinction between motorcycle is becoming more common today in been the focus of test programs and types are that some are designed for many highway motorcycles, there are efforts to assess the potential impacts of operation on-road and others are still many models that use carburetors. E15 on such engines. From a historical designed for operation off-road. The Off-highway motorcycles have only perspective, the introduction of heavy- motorcycles designed for operation on- begun to use EFI in a very few duty gasoline engine and vehicle road are referred to as highway expensive competition models. The vast technology has lagged behind the motorcycles. Highway motorcycles can majority of off-highway motorcycles range from small scooters equipped implementation of similar technology continue to use carburetors. with a 50 cubic centimeter (cc) single for light-duty motor vehicles. Similarly, All internal combustion engines need cylinder two-stroke engine to a large emission standards for this sector have a system to cool the engine from the touring motorcycle equipped with a excessive heat generated as part of the lagged behind those of light-duty motor multi-cylinder four-stroke engine with vehicles, such that current heavy-duty combustion process. Without a cooling an engine displacement exceeding 2,000 system, the engine would quickly gasoline engine standards remain cc. Motorcycles designed for off-road overheat and fail. Motorcycles use two comparable from a technology operation are referred to as off-highway types of engine cooling systems: liquid- standpoint to older light-duty motor motorcycles and can differ significantly cooled and air-cooled. Liquid-cooled vehicle standards. Consequently, we from highway motorcycles in design systems are very similar to the systems believe the discussion in Section VI.C. and appearance. used by automobiles. A radiator stores for MY2000 and older motor vehicles Motorcycles have been around for a liquid coolant that is distributed should also be applicable to the majority well over 100 years. The fuel system throughout the engine which cools the of the in-use fleet of heavy-duty gasoline used to manage the A/F ratio for engine. The heated coolant is returned engines and vehicles. Therefore, we are motorcycles has been the carburetor. In to the radiator where it is cooled by air proposing to prohibit the use of E15 in fact, the carburetor has been the fuel from the moving motorcycle or from an heavy-duty gasoline engines and control system of choice for highway external fan. An air-cooled system is vehicles. We seek comment on this and off-highway motorcycles until the similar to that used for most nonroad assessment. last decade. Starting in the late 1990s, engines and is less sophisticated than a

92 Diurnal testing refers to a process for measuring 93 Onboard refueling vapor recovery systems were for detailed results (available at http:// evaporative emissions where a vehicle is placed in phased into production in light-duty motor vehicles www.crcao.org). a sealed enclosure and the temperature varied over over MY1998–2000, and provide a relatively short, 94 There are approximately 250 million cars and multiple cycles to simulate ambient day and night large-diameter pathway for vapors to reach the trucks in the fleet today when diesels are included. conditions in summertime. See Coordinating carbon canister where they are stored for Research Council Report No. E–77–2 for detailed combustion during engine operation. See results (available at http://www.crcao.org). Coordinating Research Council Report No. E–77–2

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68075

liquid-cooled system. An air-cooled HC, CO, and NOx emissions. In general, In either case, the use of E15 fuel system uses a series of external ‘‘fins’’ the overall majority of motorcycles could cause engine damage and located on the cylinders and cylinder designed from 1978 through 2006 either emission increases for highway heads that help direct heat away from used an A/F ratio leaner than desired for motorcycles built prior to 2008 and for the cylinder and cylinder head. Since maximum performance and durability all off-highway motorcycles, regardless the engine in a motorcycle is exposed to to comply with highway motorcycle of age. For highway motorcycles built the atmosphere and not contained in an emission standards or ran rich, in the after MY2008 there is the possibility engine compartment like an automobile, case of off-highway motorcycles, to help that some models may be able to the engine is exposed to passing air as cool the engine and protect it from successfully accommodate the use E15 the machine is operated on the road or overheating and failure. The practice of fuel. For MY2008 and beyond, there are trail. The passing air is channeled motorcycle owners adjusting the A/F a number of models that use EFI and through the fins and helps cool the ratio to a richer setting to improve catalytic converters. The systems are cylinder and cylinder head, which helps performance and driveability was even similar to automotive closed-loop cool the combustion chamber, reducing more prevalent in the off-highway catalyst systems. However, one of the the overall engine temperature. Air- motorcycle sector, especially for advantages to modern Tier 2 light-duty cooling is not nearly as effective at competition motorcycles where emission control systems is that they controlling engine temperature as liquid performance is an important attribute. use very sophisticated fuel trim learning cooling. One of the strategies to help As E10 fuel has become more systems that allow a very precise with engine cooling for engines that rely prevalent in the marketplace, many ‘‘learning and adapting’’ of changes to on air-cooling is to operate the engine at owners of off-highway and older the A/F ratio mixture. While many of an A/F ratio that is rich of highway motorcycles have chosen to today’s motorcycle models use closed- stoichiometry. The additional fuel helps either operate their motorcycles on E0 loop systems, they do not have the reduce combustion temperature, fuel whenever it is available or have advanced fuel trim control of today’s keeping overall engine temperature modified their A/F ratio to a richer motor vehicles, meaning they would lower. For this reason, any increase in setting. In fact, the internet is full of most likely not be able to accommodate the A/F ratio beyond that designed for blogs of motorcycle owners discussing the enleanment of the A/F ratio in the at the time of manufacturing, such as concerns with operation on E10 fuel and same manner as today’s motor vehicles. the enleanment resulting from ethanol, ways to avoid these concerns, including Their closed-loop technology is more raises potential concerns. how to change the A/F ratio setting. It similar to that of MY2000 and older In 1978, EPA issued HC and CO is a violation of the CAA to modify a motor vehicles than to current motor emission standards for highway certified motorcycle from its certified vehicles. motorcycles. There were no standards configuration. Changing the A/F ratio In light of the above, while there is no for NOX emissions. To meet these from the certified setting would be actual E15 test data on motorcycles, standards, the vast majority of considered tampering, yet it is clear it EPA believes that any operation of motorcycle models used the approach of is practiced in-use. highway or off-highway motorcycles on adjusting the A/F ratio rather than using For highway motorcycles designed to fuel containing E15 could result in any unique emission control already operate leaner to comply with engine damage and emission increases technologies, such as catalytic emission standards, the use of E15 fuel for highway and off-highway converters, EFI, and air injection. For would result in a further leaning of the motorcycles. It also could have the performance and durability purposes, A/F ratio. These motorcycles were unintentional result of encouraging designed with an optimized A/F ratio most motorcycles operated with an A/F motorcycle owners to violate the CAA setting taking into consideration the ratio that was considerably rich of by tampering with the vehicles A/F ratio delicate balance of emissions, stoichiometry. The strategy used to setting to improve performance, performance, and engine protection. control HC and CO emissions was to driveability, and protect the engine from Since most of these motorcycles use lean the A/F ratio from these rich values damage, while at the same time carburetors, the A/F ratio is not easily traditionally used for maximum significantly increasing hydrocarbon adjusted to adapt to the increased performance. As with light-duty motor and CO emissions. Therefore, we are vehicles, this strategy resulted in lower amount of oxygen in the A/F mixture. proposing to prohibit the use of E15 in HC and CO emissions, but caused an The additional enleanment of the A/F all motorcycles (highway and off- increase in NO emissions. Since there ratio could cause an increase in X highway) but seek comment on our were no NO emission standards, the combustion temperature and ultimately X assessment. increased NOX emissions were allowed. engine temperature, potentially This strategy also resulted in complaints resulting in an exceedance of the F. Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and about vehicle performance and emission standards and engine failure. Equipment (Nonroad Products) driveability. As a result, a common For off-highway motorcycles that have 1. Introduction practice was for motorcycle owners to typically been designed to operate rich change the A/F ratio on their own to a of stoichiometry for engine protection, The nonroad product market is richer setting that improved the the enleanment of the A/F ratio could extremely diverse which makes it performance concerns, but also possibly cause an increase in engine temperature difficult to determine what the impacts resulted in an exceedance of the beyond what the engine was designed to of E15 use might be. However, similar emissions standards. These emission accommodate and ultimately result in to older motor vehicles, it appears that standards were unchanged until 2006 engine failure. As a result of the nonroad products may experience when more stringent standards for HC increased enleanment resulting from emissions increases related to and new standards for NOX were E15 fuel, more motorcycle owners may enleanment and material compatibility introduced for MY2008. be tempted to adjust the A/F setting of issues if operated on E15. This is based Off-highway motorcycles were their motorcycles to protect vehicles in large part on the history of the design unregulated until 2006. Beginning with from potential damage resulting in of nonroad products operating on E10 in MY2006, off-highway motorcycles were possible exceedances of the emissions relation to the age of those products in required to meet emission standards for standards. the field, and the implications of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

extrapolating this in-use operating with changes in engine design or nonroad engine and equipment experience with E10 to E15. warnings in consumer owner manuals manufacturer Web sites indicates a The majority of nonroad products are (either to avoid ethanol blended fuels or general acceptance of E10 use with the still carbureted, or have very simplistic blends higher than 10%). However, the new products being produced today, electronic fuel injection which cannot design practices and recommendations manufacturers continue to caution adjust the engine A/F ratio, and do not varied across the industry due to the against any higher level ethanol use, have any onboard diagnostics to breadth of the nonroad market (as and marine manufacturers still caution monitor engine performance before highlighted in Table VI.F.1–1) and the against E10 use.96 In addition, nonroad components may fail. The experience of wide range of manufacturers, product manufacturers are clearly still consumers with E10 in nonroad applications, and markets. The design learning how to design for compatibility products in the 1980s pushed most manufacturers to take some steps to practices also continued to evolve over with E10 as evidenced by a recent large address enleanment and E10 material time in part due to emission recall of snowblowers due to corroded 95 97 compatibility issues at that time, either regulations. While a review of current carburetors.

TABLE VI.F.1–1—2010 ESTIMATED POPULATION OF NONROAD ENGINES, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES

Estimated 2010 in-use Nonroad category Typical equipment/vehicles population (millions)

Small SI Engine ...... Handheld: Trimmers, chainsaws, blowers, hedge trimmers ...... 131. Nonhandheld: Lawnmowers, generators, riding tractors. Marine Outboard ...... Outboard engines to power fishing boats, pontoon boats ...... 10. Marine Sterndrive/Inboard ...... Speed boats, Ocean going fishing boats ...... 2. Marine Personal Watercraft ...... Jet skis, jet boats, etc...... 1.3. All Terrain Vehicles ...... Four wheelers ...... 11. Nonroad Motorcycles ...... Nonroad motorcycles ...... 2.6. Snowmobiles ...... Snowmobiles ...... 2.4. Large SI ...... Fork Lifts ...... 0.24. On-Highway Motorcycles ...... On-Highway Motorcycles ...... 8 (2008 estimated population).

In addition, as shown in Table as Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, and Oregon has taken the additional step of VI.F.1–2, consumers are still using a Washington that have mandated the use publishing a list of retail stations considerable amount of older nonroad of ethanol blends have also provided distributing E0 to assist their nonroad products (e.g., marine engines) that are exceptions to the mandate for sale of consumers in locating it.98 not necessarily designed for E10 use. In ethanol free gasoline (E0) for a variety recognition of this situation, States such of nonroad products. In addition,

TABLE VI.F.1–2—2010 ESTIMATED ACTIVE NONROAD PRODUCT POPULATION

Nonroad SI, excluding Marine SI Sales years marine SI (thousands) (thousands)

2007–2010 ...... 98,255 3,155 2003–2006 ...... 39,466 2,953 1999- 2002 ...... 7,245 2,484 1995–1998 ...... 1,253 1,828 1991–1994 ...... 475 1,215 1987–1990 ...... 208 656 1983–1986 ...... 72 348 1979–1982 ...... 28 177 1975–1978 ...... 18 100 1971–1974 ...... 11 50 1967–1970 ...... 6 23 1963–1966 ...... 3 10

Total ...... 147,040 12,999 Source: UnEPA Nonroad8a model.

95 The first exhaust emission regulations for tended to enlean the A/F ratio of new engines 96 See EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448, Submittal to nonroad products began with Small SI Engines in compared to prior engines and limit the ability to Docket on Yamaha Web site information. 1997 and the last onroad categories of Marine manually adjust the A/F ratio, so while newer 97 See EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448, CPSC, Health Inboard/Sterndrive and Snowmobiles will meet engines may use materials better suited for ethanol, Canada and Toro snowblower recall. their first exhaust emission standards in 2010. The they may also be more susceptible to enleanment 98 See EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448, Oregon State design changes to comply with the standards concerns. Government Non-Ethanol Fuel Supplier Listing.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68077

2. Enleanment control.101 This means they do not have lean limit is increased. A lean limit is the ability to self-adjust the A/F ratio in- found when the typical emissions trend Given the relatively undeveloped use for the presence of ethanol in the for enleanment (decreased HC and CO technological design of the nonroad fuel. The amount of enleanment an emissions and increased NOX product fleet for purposes of emissions engine experiences in-use depends on emissions) reverses and results in control, one of the main concerns with several factors, including manufacturing increased HC and CO and decreased the use of E15 in nonroad products, as variability, engine wear, and, NOX. The reversal of emissions at the for older motor vehicles, is the importantly for E15, the A/F ratio lean limit is a signal the engine is increased temperatures caused by setting of the engine in comparison to starting to experience incomplete enleanment of the A/F ratio. With the setting needed for the fuel the combustion and is beginning to higher levels of ethanol, the engine is operating on. Engine experience misfires, hence the increases stoichiometric (ideal) A/F ratio becomes manufacturers set the A/F ratio settings in HC. This often results in engine lower (i.e., more fuel is needed for the at the time of production based on a failure since the engine cannot operate same amount of air) due to the increased number of factors including the for an extended period of time under oxygen in the fuel; hence, the nonroad emission standards, expected this condition. Results from a DOE pilot products run leaner since they do not deterioration of emissions over time and study on small SI nonroad products adjust to the fuel oxygen content. the emission certification fuels.102 In- confirmed the potential enleanment Engines designed to operate on non- use engines are Federally certified on concerns.105 Several engines failed prior ethanol fuels (0 wt% oxygen) are E0, while engines certified to California to reaching their full useful life, and the currently operating on E10, which standards are certified on an MTBE emission results for one of these (a typically contains about 3.5–3.7 wt% blend (the equivalent oxygen content of consumer market trimmer) indicated oxygen, and would operate on about E6 or about 2.0 wt% oxygen).103 that it indeed may have exceeded its approximately 5.5 wt% oxygen when Thus, when nonroad products switch to lean limit when operating on E15. operating on E15. As evidenced by using E10 in the field, they operate various studies,99 enleanment has an leaner than they were set to operate and Finally, as highlighted above in VI.C., immediate impact on emissions, causing would operate leaner still on E15. Older catalysts are an emission reduction HC and CO emissions to decrease and nonroad products may have more technology that is sensitive to increases NOX emissions to increase. However, headroom to tolerate enleanment from in exhaust temperature that would since the HC and NOX impacts are ethanol than newer engines. This is result from the use of E15. Although not directionally opposite, these immediate because manufacturers have tended to yet commonly found on nonroad impacts are of less concern than the set the A/F ratio for their newer engines products, they began phasing-in on impacts of long-term operation and closer to stoichiometry (less rich) to small SI handheld engines in 2002. High durability. Leaner operation increases meet newer, more stringent emission exhaust temperatures are already a 104 cylinder and exhaust temperatures that standards in recent years. Second, the concern with these catalysts due to the can lead to overheating of the engine. In majority of nonroad products are air- close location of the catalyst to the some cases this can lead to expansion of cooled (rely on fins designed into the combustion chamber (catalysts are the engine block and pistons and result engine block to dissipate heat and some located within the muffler which is in a seized engine. Increased have a fan to aid in cooling) and fuel- commonly attached to the engine block). cooled (rely on rich operation -excess combustion temperature can also result The hotter combustion temperatures fuel—to cool certain engine components in expansion and contraction of the from engine enleanment result in hotter like exhaust valves and manifolds). engine block and head metals which exhaust temperatures experienced by Thus, they are much less forgiving of leads to loosening of the head bolts. the catalyst and can increase the temperature increases that might result With looser bolts, the gap between the likelihood of catalyst washcoat from enleanment. Third, nonroad engine block and the head will open products frequently operate at wide sintering. If sintered, the catalyst and the head gasket can get damaged, open throttle for much of their duty becomes nearly useless. The likelihood which in turn damages other engine cycle where exhaust temperatures are that an engine/catalyst setup would components (e.g., intake and exhaust highest. reach this state is dependent on the valves, manifolds, etc.) which can result Additionally, as enleanment occurs, engine/catalyst design and the in increased emissions and potential the potential for an engine to reach its production variability. Both of these engine failure. vary from engine manufacturer to The likelihood that nonroad products 101 Of the nearly 1200 gasoline-fueled nonroad engine manufacturer and engine to may experience such issues with E15 is engine families certified in 2010, only 36 are engine. estimated to have closed loop electronic fuel difficult to quantify. However, limited injection, and most of those are large spark-ignited These potential enleanment problems testing by DOE 100 showed some engine nonroad engines. would also impact the emission failures with E15, and this is not 102 Older nonroad products—those prior to performance of engines operated on E15 entirely unexpected since nonroad emission standards—tended to have A/F ratio adjustment screws so knowledgeable consumers or over their full useful life. Unfortunately, products are particularly prone to maintenance facilities could adjust the A/F ratio of emissions data from nonroad products enleanment for several reasons. First, the engine if it operating poorly. Manufacturers operated over their full useful life on nonroad products remain primarily tended to remove or limit the capability for such E15 is very limited and currently is carbureted and/or have open loop fuel manual adjustments to meet emission standards. 103 Standards for some nonroad categories which known only to exist for the small spark- require evaporative emission certification on E10 ignition sector of nonroad engines. DOE 99 ‘‘Effects of Intermediate Ethanol B lends on and allow it as an option for exhaust are just performed a pilot and durability study Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, beginning to phase in. on four small SI engine models operated Report 1’’, NREL/TP–540–43543 and ORNL/TM– 104 Some engines have been under emission 2008/117, October 2008. regulation for 13 years while others are just falling 100 ‘‘Effects of Intermediate Ethanol B lends on under emission regulation. In order to meet EPA 105 ‘‘Effects of Intermediate Ethanol B lends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, emission standards, engines have either been Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1’’, NREL/TP–540–43543 and ORNL/TM– enleaned and/or taken on engine designs of a more Report 1’’, NREL/TP–540–43543 and ORNL/TM– 2008/117, October 2008. efficient engine such as a 4 stroke engine. 2008/117, October 2008.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68078 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

on E10 and E15.106 The HC emissions addition, the vast range of nonroad applications (as well as aircraft, which from a commercial string trimmer product designs and technologies over are not nonroad for purposes of section engine were considerably higher after the years indicates that material 211(c), but in some cases use the same operation over the full useful life on E15 incompatibility may exist in portions of gasoline as nonroad products). The in comparison to E10 (191% vs. 101% the in-use fleet when using E15. transition appears to have occurred at increases in HC). Hydrocarbon Motor vehicle manufacturers, as different points in time across the emissions were similarly increased on a discussed in section VI.G, were driven market. However, this is not to say that commercial generator with E15 vs. E10 by both market forces and EPA emission these engines have been designed to be when tested over their full useful life standards to redesign motor vehicles compatible with E15. The effects of (47% increase for HC on E15 vs. 4.7% and upgrade materials for continual use ethanol are time and concentration increase for E10) and for a consumer of E10. This is not the case for nonroad dependent such that the effects of E15 power washer (150% increase on E15 products. We are not aware of any may be more severe than E10 on vs. a 44% increase for E10 107 The standard design practices self imposed materials. Consequently, manufacturers, consumer blower engines tested did not by industry in relation to the presence while approving the use of E10 today, make it to aging at full useful life on of ethanol in gasoline either in the early now also warn against the use of any E15. The blower engines did have 1980s with gasohol in the Midwest or in higher gasoline-ethanol blends. catalysts, however, the study was not the 2000s as gasoline-ethanol blends Unlike motor vehicles, most nonroad able to analyze its effectiveness over expanded nationwide. As a result, it products are used periodically and not time. If the catalyst on the blower was appears that manufacturers used a for daily tasks. Many of these products to fail and the engine continued to variety of approaches at different points are designed to be inexpensive operate, then the engine could have in time in response to market consumer products that last a relatively emitted almost the same emissions as conditions. One reason for this is that short time or are used irregularly and for pre-regulation engines (e.g., 100–120 g/ the nonroad market serves a wide range short periods of time. However a kW-hr without a catalyst vs. 50 g/kW-hr of consumers—the low cost consumer considerable fraction may remain in the with a catalyst). Thus, while it was only quality and the higher cost professional in-use fleet for a long time (10–40+ a small test sample, it is clearly quality—and the target market may years). Table VI.F.1–2 shows an suggestive that exhaust emissions may govern how decisions are made. estimated age distribution of nonroad increase considerably with E15 over the Another reason is the vast diversity of products in 2010. Marine engines are full useful life of the engines. nonroad products as discussed above. separated in the table to illustrate the Furthermore, while the study was only The wide range of engines, applications, fact that these products in particular conducted on the small SI segment of manufacturers, and markets leads to a remain in the fleet for many years. the nonroad market, the similarities wide range of equipment design Consequently, even if nonroad products between it and most other segments of practices. Finally, some manufacturers today are designed by the manufacturer the nonroad market would raise similar of nonroad vehicles and equipment may for the presence of 10% ethanol in the concerns. purchase another manufacturer’s engine gasoline, a large number of pieces of and modify it and/or its fuel system for equipment still exist in the field from 3. Material Compatibility and Corrosion a different application (e.g. purchasing a model years when ethanol was not Materials used in engine and fuel small SI engine and replacing the fuel present in gasoline, or was just system components (e.g. metals, tank with a different design so it fits in beginning to be introduced into the fuel plastics, and rubbers) must be the equipment, or marinizing an stream. Based on subsequent compatible with the full range of automotive engine for use as a marine experience, some of this equipment may expected fuel compositions. Any engine and recertifying). Since there operate fine on E10, while others may deterioration of materials could result in have been no evaporative requirements have complications due to the loss of function of critical engine for small SI engines until the Phase 3 enleanment or material incompatibility components, which can result in standards (beginning in 2009), in prior effects of using ethanol. emissions increases from fuel leaks and years the hoses and tanks could be There have been several attempts to equipment failure. Nonroad products do changed without concern. study the material compatibility of E15 not have onboard diagnostics to detect Consequently, even engine fuel systems use in nonroad engines, vehicles and these conditions and report it to the user designed for the presence of ethanol by equipment. However, the broad range of prior to engine failure. Not much is the original engine manufacturer may be equipment and designs over time make known about the use of E15 in nonroad compromised by the vehicle/equipment it extremely difficult to do any products in real world use. However, manufacturer. Thus, it is very difficult definitive study on the nonroad sector concern exists because, as discussed to quantify the volume of nonroad that would address the entire fleet. A above in section VI.B., ethanol has products in today’s fleet designed to literature and information search different material compatibility operate on E10 let alone E15. As shown prepared by the University of Minnesota characteristics than gasoline, and even in Figure VI.A–1, since E10 now Center for Diesel Research outlines a products operating adequately on E10 represents more than 80% of the number of the concerns with ethanol today may have issues with E15. In gasoline market, it is clearly being used that could be experienced with E15. in nonroad products today. However, as —Corrosion of steel is accelerated by the 106 ‘‘Effects of Intermediate Ethanol B lends on shown in Figures VI.A–3 and VI.A–4 the presence of alcohols in the fuel, both Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, expansion of E10 nationwide is still a because the ethanol itself is considered Report 1’’, NREL/TP–540–43543 and ORNL/TM– to be more corrosive but also because it 2008/117, October 2008. relatively recent event and the effects 107 we are focused on are effects from is a solvent that removes oils and The NOX emission results on commercial engines change less over time on E15 compared to longer term use of the fuel. coatings from the surface that might E10, however they start at a higher value at new Based on manufacturer Web sites and protect against corrosion. In addition, engine condition on E15. (ref: ‘‘Effects of owner’s manual recommendations, most ethanol attracts and mixes with water Intermediate Ethanol B lends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1’’, NREL/TP– new nonroad products produced today which is also corrosive and tends to 540–43543 and ORNL/TM–2008/117, October are designed to be compatible with E10. create a slightly acidic solution, 2008.) The main exceptions are marine especially over time.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68079

—Elastomers exposed to higher vehicles and nonroad products found a separation occurs, it has been reported gasoline-ethanol blends over time can variety of impacts with E20 relative to by repair shops to be acidic and result increase in weight gain, swell, soften E10 or E0, including clear in corroded carburetors and potential and increase in hardness when dried incompatibility with some materials. fuel line leaks. However, while phase and as a result lose tensile strength, The existence of such materials on separation has been and continues to be causing fuel pumps and fuel lines to equipment in the in-use fleet could lead a significant concern with E10, as fail. For fuel hoses, swelling and to increased emissions, fuel leaks, and evidenced by ongoing guidance on softening creates a risk of failure of the potentially engine failure from longer manufacturer literature 115 and nonroad joints. The swelling and softening of O- term use of E15. The degree to which engine Web sites,116 the additional rings, seals and gaskets causes a risk of such incompatible materials exist in the ethanol in E15 would increase the water damage or incorrect fit of the seal during in-use fleet is unknown, but it is clear tolerance of the blend and thereby assembly of joints leading to fuel that they do exist based on in-use potentially reduce the frequency of leakage. experience with E10.112, 113 phase separation occurring. —Seals and gaskets on equipment that We are not aware of any testing that Similarly, in areas that have have not been previously exposed to has been done that might help quantify transitioned to E10, problems have higher alcohol fuels could deteriorate the potential impact on emissions from historically also shown up in repair and break down creating leakage. the types of engine problems that would shops due to the solvency/detergency —Fiberglass-reinforced plastic fuel result from material compatibility characteristics of ethanol. Ethanol has tanks, such as those on marine engines problems. However on July 14, 2010 the been known to dislodge sludge and and motorcycles, may also experience United States Consumer Protection varnish in the fuel system, causing it to problems depending on the type of resin Safety Commission (CPSC) and Health clog fuel filters and carburetors. and how much the ethanol will Canada (HC) announced a recall of Toro However, if in-use engines have already contribute to the corrosion of it. snowblowers stating that ‘‘Exposure to been operated on E10, the cleansing —Materials such as lead/tin-coated steel ethanol in gasoline can cause the effect of the ethanol may have already used in fuel tanks and aluminum fuel carburetor needle to become corroded. occurred, and transitioning to E15 may system components require corrosion A corroded needle can stick in the open not result in any additional problems. inhibitors due to the presence of the position and allow fuel to leak from the 114 G. Model Year 2007 and Newer Light- higher alcohol in E15. carburetor.’’ Clearly fuel leaks would In addition, four studies have been result in a considerable increase in Duty Motor Vehicles reported which tested the effect of a evaporative emissions, and material MY2007 and newer light-duty motor number of ethanol containing fuels issues with carburetors, fuel pumps, and vehicles are covered by EPA’s Tier 2 (E10, E20) on materials compatibility of other engine components could clearly program which established dramatically polymers, metal, and elastomers in lead to significant changes in exhaust more stringent NOX standards. While motor vehicles and nonroad engines. emissions, if not engine survivability. the program allowed the standards to While none of these studies reported on 4. Phase Separation and Solvency/ phase in from MY2004 through E15, a number of reports gave Detergency MY2009, manufacturer certification data conditions seen on E10 and E20 and so show that gasoline-fueled motor Two additional concerns with E10 use results for E15 can be interpolated. The vehicles actually reached full in nonroad products are phase results of one technical assessment, implementation with MY2007. MYs separation and solvency/detergency (see published in 2002,108 of E10 and E20 on 2004–2006 included a mix of vehicles— section VI.B.). However, if nonroad two 2-stroke engines indicated materials some Tier 2 and some non-Tier 2. Tier products have already been operating on 2 motor vehicles are more compatibility concerns for E20 for both E10, the degree to which these would be technologically advanced and robust engine types, including effects on some a concern with E15 is unknown. Phase than cars built years ago, are fully polymeric materials that were deemed separation occurs if a gasoline-ethanol capable of running on E10, and must unacceptable and E20 tarnishing and blend is saturated with water. Phase have their evaporative emission systems corroding brass and aluminum parts. separation is more likely in nonroad aged on E10 for durability purposes. Similarly, three other studies conducted products due to the fact that these Sophisticated computer systems and by the University of Minnesota engines are typically used only sensors constantly monitor the engine published in 2008 on metal, plastic, and seasonally or occasionally throughout and the exhaust to be sure that elastomer materials, the year and in the case of marine 109, 110, 111 everything (i.e., the A/F ratio mixture) is respectively, used in highway applications, the equipment is generally in a humid, water environment. In kept at its optimum level. All auto 108 ‘‘A Technical Assessment of E10 and E20 manufacturers now warrant their new Petrol Ethanol Blends Applied to Non-Automotive addition, specifically for small SI engines, some of the fuel systems are motor vehicles to operate on E10 or less. Engines. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of As found in the E15 waiver decision Engine Function and Component Design for open to the atmosphere through a direct Mercury Marine 15hp Outboard and Stihl FS45 vent in the gas cap which exposes the also published today, we believe on the Line-Trimmer Engines,’’ conducted by Orbital fuel to air and humidity. If phase basis of testing performed and our own Engine Company, Report to Environment Australia, engineering assessment, that these November 2002. MY2007 and newer Tier 2 light-duty 109 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Metals Used in 111 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Plastic Automotive Fuel Automotive Fuel System Components,’’ by Bruce System Components,’’ by Bruce Jones, Gary Mead, motor vehicles are durable and will Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens and Mike and Paul Steevens, Minnesota Center for maintain their emission performance Timanus, Minnesota Center for Automotive Automotive Research at Minnesota State University, when operated on E15. Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato, Mankato, February 21, 2008. To evaluate the impacts of E15 on February 22, 2008. 112 http://www.fuel-testers.com/marine_e10_bad_ _ Tier 2 motor vehicles, DOE performed a 110 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Elastomers Used in gas reports.html. Automotive Fuel System Components,’’ by Bruce 113 http://www.sail-world.com/USA/index.cfm? Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Mike SEID=0&Nid=38442& 115 See EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448, Collection of Timanus, Minnesota Center for Automotive SRCID=0&ntid=0&tickeruid=0&tickerCID=0. manufacturer literature from 1980 to present. Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato, 114 See EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448, CPSC, Health 116 See EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448, Submittal to February 22, 2008. Canada and Toro snowblower recall. Docket on Yamaha Web site information.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68080 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

catalyst durability test program 117 on 19 Perhaps the most critical changes temperatures when operated on E15. Tier 2 motor vehicles from high sales made over time were the changes to the However, as evidenced by the DOE volume models produced by the various engine calibrations and catalyst systems catalyst durability test program, at least light-duty vehicle manufacturers to accommodate changes in the A/F for Tier 2 motor vehicles this does not throughout 2009 and 2010. The specific ratio such as those that occur when appear to be the case. Even those purpose of the test program was to switching to operation on gasoline- vehicles that do not apply learned fuel evaluate the long term effects of E0, E10, ethanol blends. Evolution in emission trim appear to have sufficient thermal E15, and E20 on catalyst system standards prompted corresponding margins. Therefore, not only do all durability. However, a number of the evolution in motor vehicle emission manufacturers warrant their Tier 2 motor vehicles were also torn down and control systems. In particular, catalyst motor vehicles for operation on E10, but evaluated for any other impacts E15 deterioration must be minimized and as discussed in the waiver decision may have had, including material catalyst temperatures controlled during document, we believe that they will also compatibility in the fuel and all vehicle operation modes for the operate properly on gasoline-ethanol evaporative emission control systems. catalyst to work properly (i.e., for it to blends up to E15. As discussed in the waiver decision maintain the necessary high efficiency With respect to evaporative emissions document, program results indicate that demanded by the Tier 2 standards). Tier control, evaporative systems have had the changes manufacturers made 2 motor vehicles, especially the MY2007 leak detection diagnostic requirements (calibration, hardware, etc.) to their and newer motor vehicles, have since at least MY2000 as a result of the motor vehicles to comply with the Tier improved hardware as well as more Agency’s Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) 2 standards have enabled the motor sophisticated emission control systems program. In addition, CAP2000 which vehicles to operate satisfactorily on E15, and strategies to help maintain catalyst took effect with MY2001 motor vehicles including the ability of their catalysts to effectiveness, and an extended motor placed more emphasis on the ‘‘in-use’’ withstand the additional enleanment vehicle operating range over which performance of motor vehicle emission caused by E15. emissions performance must be controls with motor vehicles operating maintained. MY2007 and newer motor nationwide on the different available The DOE test program was critical in vehicles have the ability to precisely fuels. This emphasis on real world supporting the waiver decision. adjust for changes in the A/F ratio and motor vehicle testing prompted However, it also serves to confirm our ultimately maintain peak catalyst manufacturers to consider different engineering assessment of the ability of efficiency under almost any condition, available fuels, including gasoline- light-duty motor vehicles to handle E15. such as exposure to oxygenated fuels ethanol blends, when developing and The emission standards that EPA has like those containing ethanol. To do so, testing their emission systems. implemented over time affecting motor some manufacturers incorporated However, even with the CAP2000 vehicles have become more and more learned or adaptive fuel trim into their requirements, some materials issues stringent (i.e., Tier 0 to Tier 1 to LEV1 motor vehicle designs to modulate the continued to arise during in-use and NLEV to Tier 2 and LEV2). In A/F ratio and alleviate catalyst addition, full useful life requirements temperature increases even under open emissions testing. Consequently, as part have increased and new test cycles have loop conditions. Others, through careful of the new Tier 2 standards, EPA added been added. To comply with the hardware selection and certain the requirement that the evaporative stringent Tier 2 standards, calibration approaches, have motor control system and all related manufacturers must minimize vehicle designs with higher thermal components (i.e. fuel tanks, fuel lines, deterioration of their vehicle emission margins to accommodate the effects of etc.) demonstrate durability over their control systems over a vehicle’s full enleanment with gasoline-ethanol full useful life while operating on E10. useful life of 120,000 miles. By MY2004, blends. Due to this new requirement, materials new test procedures took effect to better Prior to completion of the DOE that would compromise evaporative represent actual consumer driving catalyst durability test program some emission compliance over the full habits and conditions. These additional concern had been expressed that when useful life with exposure at E10 levels test cycles, coupled with the in-use operated on E15, vehicles, even Tier 2 were eliminated as options for fuel testing required under the Compliance motor vehicles that did not apply system components. This requirement, Assurance Program (CAP2000), pushed learned fuel trim, may experience coupled with much more stringent manufacturers to develop more robust catalyst degradation and higher evaporative emission standards (over a emissions control systems (such as emissions over time due to the higher 50% reduction for passenger cars and systems using wide range oxygen exhaust temperatures it may cause. light trucks), was phased-in with the sensors) capable of withstanding the Several screening studies had measured Tier 2 exhaust standards. Prior to Tier higher temperatures experienced during exhaust and catalyst temperature and/or 2, materials are believed to have also these more severe cycles without simply evaluated the ability of vehicles to apply been selected for ethanol compatibility relying on enriching of the A/F ratio, learned fuel trim to adjust for the but perhaps not for continuous exposure causing emissions to rise. With each enleanment due to ethanol during open over the full useful life. Based on new program, manufacturers were loop operation.118, 119 They had found conversations with original equipment required to improve the efficiency and that those vehicles that did not apply manufacturer parts suppliers, it is our durability of emission control hardware learned fuel trim tended to experience understanding that in designing and the methods and control systems higher catalyst and exhaust materials for continuous E10 exposure, governing hardware performance they tested materials, components, and causing newer motor vehicles to be able 118 Mid-level Ethanol Blends Catalyst Durability systems using ethanol levels in excess of to accommodate gasoline-ethanol blends Study Screening, Coordinating Research Council 20% to ensure compatibility with E10. more so than older motor vehicles. Report: Consequently, Tier 2 motor vehicle E–87–1, June 2009. designs should also be designed to be 119 Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on 117 Catalyst Durability Study, Department of Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-road Engines, compatible with E15, and the results of Energy/Coordinating Research Council Report: Report 1—Updated, National Renewable Energy the DOE catalyst durability test program E–87–2, September 2010. Laboratory, February 2009. served to confirm this belief.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68081

H. Model Year 2001–2006 Motor starting the test program with a blended with greater than 10 vol% Vehicles significant number of miles already ethanol in (1) MY2000 and older motor For MY2001–2006 motor vehicles, driven by consumers on E0. However, at vehicles, (2) heavy-duty gasoline both our engineering assessment and the least 50,000 miles are being engines and vehicles, (3) motorcycles, available data make it less clear whether accumulated on each motor vehicle, and and (4) nonroad products. Today’s motor vehicles produced during those identical motor vehicles of the same prohibitions and other requirements are model years could have emission model are being tested on E0, E10, E15, intended to reduce emissions due to the increases from long-term fueling with and E20. use of E15 in the group of vehicles or engines reasonably expected to have E15 like MY2000 and older motor I. Emissions Impact Summary and these adverse effects. The term vehicles or whether they would Conclusions continue to function properly like misfueling describes use of E15 in the As discussed above, the potential MY2007 and newer motor vehicles. On prohibited engines, vehicles and exists for E15 use to cause long-term or the one hand, we believe that many of equipment listed above. We are inviting permanent increases in exhaust the same elements for ethanol comment on whether this prohibition emissions from MY2000 and older light- compatibility of MY2007 and newer should also apply for MY2001–MY2006 duty motor vehicles, heavy-duty motor vehicles also apply to these motor motor vehicles. gasoline engines and vehicles, vehicles (e.g., designing to enhanced motorcycles, and nonroad products, as a VII. What is our legal authority for evaporative emission standards, SFTP, result of accelerated deterioration of proposing these misfueling mitigation CAP2000). On the other hand, they were engine and emission control measures? not all required to demonstrate components. This deterioration can be a As explained above, we are proposing evaporative emission system durability result of changes in engine operation, misfueling mitigation measures on E10 or to upgrade their catalyst and such as higher exhaust temperature, or pursuant to our authority under CAA emission control systems to the extent damage to materials not compatible section 211(c)(1). This section gives EPA needed to comply with the Tier 2 with E15. Similarly, evaporative authority to ‘‘control or prohibit the standards. The NLEV standards that emission increases may occur manufacture, introduction into began phasing in with MY2001 required immediately due to increased commerce, offering for sale, or sale’’ of improvements in closed loop A/F ratio permeation or over time due to repeated any fuel or fuel additive (A) whose control and catalyst efficiency, but the or on-going exposure of the fuel and emission products, in the judgment of Tier 2 standards represented a evaporative emission control systems to the Administrator, cause or contribute considerable step change beyond NLEV. E15. In some cases the potential to air pollution ‘‘which may be Furthermore, as discussed below, while emission impacts could be quite reasonably anticipated to endanger there are some ongoing test programs dramatic (i.e., more than an order of public health or welfare’’ or (B) whose evaluating the effects of E15, we do not magnitude) given the large differences emission products ‘‘will impair to a yet have sufficient data that would serve between controlled and uncontrolled significant degree the performance of to confirm or deny any engineering emissions on today’s light-duty motor any emission control device or system analysis of the situation, and in vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines which is in general use, or which the particular to address the potential and vehicles, motorcycles, and nonroad Administrator finds has been developed concerns raised over those motor products. Consequently, the in-use to a point where in a reasonable time it vehicles that do not apply learned fuel emissions increases and air quality would be in general use’’ were the fuel trim during open loop operation. Two studies that might help inform impact could be substantial for any of control or prohibition adopted. Under the situation are currently still in these products that experience very section 211(c)(1), EPA may adopt a fuel process. The Rochester Institute of significant deterioration. control if at least one of the two criteria While it is not possible to quantify the above are met. We are proposing the Technology is conducting a study of 10 frequency at which all of these products misfueling mitigation measures based motor vehicles spanning MY1998–2004 might experience problems with the use on both of these criteria. Under section on E20 and is operating roughly 300 of E15, the degree of emissions increases 211(c)(1)(B), we believe that E15 would motor vehicles in-use on E20.120 While associated with them, or the significantly impair the emission the results of this study to date suggest effectiveness of the proposed misfueling control systems used in MY2000 and vehicles may operate acceptably on mitigation measures, we believe that the older light-duty motor vehicles, heavy- E20—and by interpolation E15—mileage emission related problems would occur duty gasoline engines and vehicles, accumulation is limited, so its ability to with enough frequency that the highway and off-highway motorcycles, assess emission impacts over the FUL of resulting emission benefits from the and all nonroad products. This leads us the vehicles is also limited. In addition, avoided misfueling would clearly to conclude, under section 211(c)(1)(A), since there are no control vehicles outweigh the relatively low cost that the likely result would be increased operating on E0, comparisons of imposed by the proposed regulations. HC, CO and NOx emissions when these emission effects are restricted. The The emission benefits are the emissions study is ongoing until November 2010. particular engines, vehicles and increases from longer term use of E15 nonroad products use E15. The In addition, DOE is in the process of that would not occur because of this conducting catalyst durability testing on following sections summarize our misfueling mitigation program. This is analysis of each criterion. six motor vehicles certified to NLEV particularly the case considering the standards and two motor vehicles significant consumer savings for A. Health and Welfare Concerns of Air certified to Tier 1 standards which will avoided repairs and replacement that, as Pollution Caused by E15 also be completed by November. Since discussed in section III.F., would by We believe that the emissions the motor vehicles are older, they are themselves be expected to exceed the products of E15 contribute to air costs of the misfueling mitigation pollution that can reasonably be 120 The effect of E20 ethanol fuel on vehicle emissions, B Hilton and B Duddy, Center for measures. anticipated to endanger public health Integrated Manufacturing Studies, Rochester For these reasons, the Agency and welfare. As described in Section Institute of Technology, June 26, 2009. proposes to prohibit the use of gasoline VI.B., the unique physical and chemical

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

properties of ethanol may negatively vehicles and equipment, so new systems in MY2000 and older light-duty impact certain engines, vehicles and emissions standards under section 202 motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline equipment when those products use for any of these products would not engines and vehicles, highway and off- gasoline-ethanol blends containing achieve any additional protection highway motorcycles, and all nonroad increased amounts of ethanol, beyond those obtained through the products. particularly if those engines, vehicles misfueling mitigation measures being C. Effect of Misfueling Mitigation and equipment are not designed for proposed today under section 211(c)(1). Measures on the Use of Other Fuels or accommodating that increase. The result It is therefore appropriate for EPA to Fuel Additives is likely an increase in HC, CO and NOx exercise its authority under section emissions from these engines, vehicles 211(c)(1)(A) and propose these Section 211(c)(2)(C) requires that, and equipment (see Sections VI.C.–F.). misfueling mitigation measures that will prior to prohibiting a fuel or fuel This potential increase in emissions of likely reduce or eliminate the emissions additive, EPA establish that such these particular pollutants contributes products from E15 that contribute to the prohibition will not cause the use of to air pollution levels that, for example, air pollution that endangers our public another fuel or fuel additive ‘‘which will can violate the NAAQS for ozone or PM. health or welfare. produce emissions which endanger the Section 211(c)(2)(A) requires that, public health or welfare to the same or B. Impact of E15 Emission Products on prior to adopting fuel controls based on greater degree’’ as the prohibited fuel or Emission Control Systems a finding that the fuel’s emission fuel additive. Even assuming that this products contribute to air pollution that EPA believes that E15 can proposal amounts to a prohibition, as can reasonably be anticipated to significantly impair the emissions compared to a control, EPA does not endanger public health or welfare, EPA control technology in MY2000 and older believe that the proposed misfueling consider ‘‘all relevant medical and light-duty motor vehicles, heavy-duty mitigation measures will result in the scientific evidence available, including gasoline engines and vehicles, highway use of any other fuel or fuel additive consideration of other technologically or and off-highway motorcycles, and all that will produce emissions that will economically feasible means of nonroad products. As discussed in endanger public health or welfare to the achieving emission standards under Section VI above, ethanol enleans the same or greater degree as the emissions [section 202 of the Act].’’ EPA’s analysis A/F ratio; this may lead to emissions produced by E15. In fact, the measures of the evidence relating to the emissions products that can cause increased being proposed today should lessen the impact of emissions from E15 is exhaust gas temperatures and, over overall public health or welfare impacts described in Section VI above, while the time, incremental deterioration of from the emissions from these products. evidence concerning the NAAQS is emission control hardware and To the extent that EPA is proposing a discussed in the NAAQS rulemakings performance. Enleanment can also lead prohibition of using E15 in certain themselves. to catalyst failure. Additionally, ethanol engines, vehicles and equipment, such a EPA has also satisfied the statutory can cause material compatibility issues prohibition should serve to prevent or requirement to consider ‘‘other which may lead to other component reduce misfueling in those products and technologically or economically feasible failure. Ultimately, all of these impacts avoid the increased detrimental effects means of achieving emission standards would likely significantly impair the this provision seeks to protect against. under section [202 of the Act].’’ This emissions control systems or devices These products would instead use other provision has been interpreted as and lead to exhaust and/or evaporative gasoline or gasoline-ethanol blends requiring consideration of establishing emission increases. currently available in the marketplace emissions standards under section 202 Section 211(c)(2)(B) requires that, and be able to meet their current prior to establishing controls or prior to adopting a fuel control based on emissions standards. Thus, EPA may prohibitions on fuels or fuel additives a significant impairment to emission propose these misfueling mitigation under section 211(c)(1)(A). See Ethyl control systems, EPA consider available measures under 211(c)(1) without Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 31–32 (DC Cir. scientific and economic data, including causing other public health or welfare 1976). In Ethyl, the Court stated that a cost benefit analysis comparing effects from the use of another fuel or section 211(c)(2)(A) calls for good faith emission control devices or systems fuel additive. consideration of the evidence and which are or will be in general use that options, not for mandatory deference to require the proposed fuel control with VIII. Public Participation regulation under section 202 compared such devices or systems which are or We request comment on all aspects of to fuel controls. Id. at 32, n.66. For will be in general use that do not require this proposal. This section describes MY2000 and older motor vehicles, the proposed fuel control. This how you can participate in this process. proposing emissions standards under provision is not applicable to the section 202 is not an option since proposed misfueling mitigation A. How do I submit comments? emissions standards promulgated under measures since a particular emission We are opening a formal comment section 202 only apply to new motor control device or system is not required period by publishing this document. We vehicles. This is also true for the other for use with the measures being will accept comments during the period categories (heavy-duty gasoline engines proposed today. Instead, the misfueling indicated under DATES in the first part and vehicles, highway and off-highway mitigation measures are being proposed of this proposal. If you have an interest motorcycles, and all nonroad products) to protect existing controls on existing in the proposed program described in to the extent these products are already engines, vehicles and equipment this document, we encourage you to in the marketplace. Thus, for all of these already in the marketplace from the comment on any aspect of this products, the proposed measures under detrimental impacts they may incur rulemaking. We also request comment section 211(c)(1) are appropriate for when using E15. on specific topics identified throughout addressing misfueling. Additionally, Thus, EPA may exercise its authority this proposal. EPA has previously promulgated the under section 211(c)(1)(B) and propose Your comments will be most useful if most technologically and economically these misfueling mitigation measures you include appropriate and detailed feasible HC, CO and NOX emissions since use of E15 would significantly supporting rationale, data, and analysis. standards for all of these engines, impair the emission control devices or Commenters are especially encouraged

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:58 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68083

to provide specific suggestions for any C. Will there be a public hearing? • To ensure proper receipt by EPA, changes to any aspect of the regulations We will hold a public hearing in identify the appropriate docket that they believe need to be modified or Chicago, IL on November 16, 2010 at the identification number in the subject line improved. You should send all location shown below. The hearing will on the first page of your response. It comments, except those containing start at 10 a.m. local time and continue would also be helpful if you provided proprietary information, to our Air until everyone has had a chance to the name, date, and Federal Register Docket (see ADDRESSES in the first part speak. citation related to your comments. of this proposal) before the end of the XI. Statutory and Executive Order comment period. Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel Reviews You may submit comments Chicago, 163 East Walton Place, @ North electronically, by mail, or through hand Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60600, A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory delivery/courier. To ensure proper Phone# 312–751–8100. Planning and Review If you would like to present testimony receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 at the public hearing, we ask that you docket identification number in the (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this notify the contact person listed under subject line on the first page of your action is a ‘‘significant regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in comment. Please ensure that your action.’’ This action may raise novel the first part of this proposal at least 8 comments are submitted within the legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA days before the hearing. You should specified comment period. Comments submitted this action to the Office of estimate the time you will need for your received after the close of the comment Management and Budget (OMB) for presentation and identify any needed period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not review under EO 12866 and any audio/visual equipment. We suggest required to consider these late changes made in response to OMB that you bring copies of your statement comments. If you wish to submit recommendations have been or other material for the EPA panel and Confidential Business Information (CBI) documented in the docket for this the audience. It would also be helpful or information that is otherwise action. protected by statute, please follow the if you send us a copy of your statement instructions in Section XI.B. or other materials before the hearing. B. Paperwork Reduction Act We will make a tentative schedule for The information collection B. How should I submit CBI to the the order of testimony based on the requirements in this proposed rule have agency? notifications we receive. This schedule been submitted for approval to the will be available on the morning of the Do not submit information that you Office of Management and Budget hearing. In addition, we will reserve a consider to be CBI electronically (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction block of time for anyone else in the through the electronic public docket, Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The audience who wants to give testimony. http://www.regulations.gov, or by Information Collection Request (ICR) We will conduct the hearing e-mail. Send or deliver information document prepared by EPA has been informally, and technical rules of identified as CBI only to the following assigned EPA ICR number 2408.01. evidence will not apply. We will address: U.S. Environmental Protection This proposed rule imposes some new arrange for a written transcript of the Agency, Assessment and Standards information collection burdens hearing and keep the official record of Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann regarding product transfer the hearing open for 30 days to allow Arbor, MI 48105, Attention Docket ID documentation. Product transfer you to submit supplementary EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448. You may documents, or PTDs, are commonly information. You may make claim information that you submit to used in the fuels distribution system arrangements for copies of the transcript EPA as CBI by marking any part or all and are their use is a customary directly with the court reporter. of that information as CBI (if you submit business practice. This proposed rule is CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the D. Comment Period expected to add a one-time burden to outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI The comment period for this rule will program and implement new product and then identify electronically within end on January 3, 2011. codes and statements, as well as a the disk or CD ROM the specific continuing, small burden associated information that is CBI). Information so E. What should I consider as I prepare with affixing (using) products codes and marked will not be disclosed except in my comments for EPA? statements. This proposed regulation accordance with procedures set forth in You may find the following contains provisions requiring standard 40 CFR part 2. suggestions helpful for preparing your product labels, which will not impose In addition to one complete version of comments: any information collection burden on the comments that include any • Explain your views as clearly as regulated parties. We have also information claimed as CBI, a copy of possible. estimated the burden associated with the comments that does not contain the • Describe any assumptions that you parties who elect to use proposed information claimed as CBI must be used. ‘‘Survey Option 1.’’ submitted for inclusion in the public • Provide any technical information For the proposed information docket. If you submit the copy that does and/or data you used that support your collection, we estimate that there will be not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, views. 9,608 annual respondents; 2,009,226 mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM • If you estimate potential burden or annual responses; and 71,809 annual clearly that it does not contain CBI. costs, explain how you arrived at your hours. We estimate that annual cost of Information not marked as CBI will be estimate. this information collection to included in the public docket without • Provide specific examples to respondents will be $5,098,427. The prior notice. If you have any questions illustrate your concerns. average burden is 0.04 hours per about CBI or the procedures for claiming • Offer alternatives. response. Burden is defined at 5 CFR CBI, please consult the person identified • Make sure to submit your 1320.3(b). in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION comments by the comment period We estimate that the cost of adding CONTACT section. deadline identified. the proposed survey of compliance

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68084 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

(which requires sampling and testing) owned and operated and is not Association of Clean Air Agencies with the proposed labeling requirements dominant in its field. (NACAA) to discuss the nature of to the existing RFG survey at $50,000 After considering the economic today’s proposed rule. Additionally, we per year. The cost to implement all of impacts of today’s proposed rule on provided State and local governments the proposed survey provisions for small entities, I certify that this action an opportunity to provide comment on conventional gasoline is estimated at $2 will not have a significant economic the implementation of misfueling million per year. Thus, the total cost of impact on a substantial number of small mitigation measures for a partial E15 the proposed survey requirements is entities. The small entities directly waiver in both the RFS2 NPRM (see 74 estimated to be $2.05 million per year regulated by this proposed rule are FR 25016) and the E15 waiver request An agency may not conduct or petroleum refiners and importers, notice (see 74 FR 18228). We received sponsor, and a person is not required to ethanol producers, ethanol blenders, comments from only one State on this respond to, a collection of information gasoline terminals, gasoline stations issue in the RFS2 NPRM, and it unless it displays a currently valid OMB with convenience stores, and other supported efforts for properly labeling control number. The OMB control gasoline stations. While there are small fuel pumps containing gasoline-ethanol numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 entities in each of these market sectors blends. Thus, Executive Order 13132 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. as discussed in Section III.F., the cost does not apply to this action. In the To comment on the Agency’s need for impact on any particular entity is spirit of Executive Order 13132, and this information, the accuracy of the expected to be a tiny fraction of annual consistent with EPA policy to promote provided burden estimates, and any revenues. communications between EPA and State suggested methods for minimizing We continue to be interested in the and local governments, EPA specifically respondent burden, EPA has established potential impacts of the proposed rule solicits comment on this proposed a public docket for this rule, which on small entities and welcome action from State and local officials. includes this ICR, under Docket ID comments on issues related to such number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0448. impacts. F. Executive Order 13175 Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action does not have Tribal section at the beginning of this notice This rule does not contain a Federal implications, as specified in Executive for where to submit comments to EPA. mandate that may result in expenditures Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, Send comments to OMB at the Office of of $100 million or more for State, local, 2000). This rule will be implemented at Information and Regulatory Affairs, and Tribal governments, in the the Federal level and impose Office of Management and Budget, 725 aggregate, or the private sector in any compliance costs only on petroleum 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC one year. The total annual cost is refiners and importers, gasoline stations 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. expected to be $6 million. Thus, this with convenience stores, and other Since OMB is required to make a rule is not subject to the requirements gasoline stations. Thus, Executive Order decision concerning the ICR between 30 of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 13175 does not apply to this action. and 60 days after November 4, 2010 a This rule is also not subject to the comment to OMB is best assured of requirements of section 203 of UMRA G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of having its full effect if OMB receives it because it contains no regulatory Children From Environmental Health by December 6, 2010. The final rule will requirements that might significantly or Risks and Safety Risks respond to any OMB or public uniquely affect small governments. This EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR comments on the information collection action primarily affects the private 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only requirements contained in this proposal. sector, specifically petroleum refiners to those regulatory actions that concern and importers, ethanol producers, C. Regulatory Flexibility Act health or safety risks, such that the ethanol blenders, gasoline terminals, The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis required under section 5–501 of gasoline stations with convenience the EO has the potential to influence the generally requires an agency to prepare stores, and other gasoline stations. a regulatory flexibility analysis of any regulation. This action is not subject to rule subject to notice and comment E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) EO 13045 because it does not establish rulemaking requirements under the EPA believes that this action does not an environmental standard intended to Administrative Procedure Act or any have federalism implications. This rule mitigate health or safety risks. other statute unless the agency certifies will not have substantial direct effects H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that the rule will not have a significant on the States, on the relationship Concerning Regulations That economic impact on a substantial between the national government and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, number of small entities. Small entities the States, or on the distribution of Distribution, or Use include small businesses, small power and responsibilities among the organizations, and small governmental various levels of government, as This action is not a ‘‘significant energy jurisdictions. specified in Executive Order 13132. Any action’’ as defined in Executive Order For purposes of assessing the impacts preemption of State or local controls 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), of today’s rule on small entities, small under section 211(c)(4)(A), based on because it is not likely to have a entity is defined as: (1) A small business issuance of this rule under section significant adverse effect on the supply, as defined by the Small Business 211(c)(1), would only apply to State or distribution, or use of energy. This Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 local controls adopted for purposes of proposed rule would require a label to CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental motor vehicle emissions control. be placed on E15 fuel dispensers, for jurisdiction that is a government of a EPA consulted with State and local those stations that elect to sell E15. The city, county, town, school district or officials early in the process of cost of the labels would average $6.45 special district with a population of less developing the proposed action to per year per gasoline station. This is a than 50,000; and (3) a small permit them to have meaningful and tiny fraction of the station’s annual organization that is any not-for-profit timely input into its development. EPA profit, and is not expected to enterprise which is independently met with members of the National significantly affect energy distribution.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68085

I. National Technology Transfer and Dated: October 13, 2010. (a) Blendstock for oxygenate blending Advancement Act Lisa P. Jackson, means gasoline blendstock which could Section 12(d) of the National Administrator. become gasoline solely upon the Technology Transfer and Advancement For the reasons set forth in the addition of an oxygenate. (b) Conventional blendstock for Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is proposed to oxygenate blending means gasoline 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) be amended as follows: blendstock which could become directs EPA to use voluntary consensus PART 80–REGULATION OF FUEL AND conventional gasoline solely upon the standards in its regulatory activities FUEL ADDITIVES addition of an oxygenate. unless to do so would be inconsistent (c) Carrier has the same meaning as with applicable law or otherwise 1. The authority citation for part 80 defined in § 80.2(t). impractical. Voluntary consensus continues to read as follows: (d) Conventional gasoline has the standards are technical standards (e.g., Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, 7545, and same meaning as defined in § 80.2(ff) materials specifications, test methods, 7601(a). (e) E0 means a gasoline that contains sampling procedures, and business 2. Section 80.45 is amended by no ethanol. practices) that are developed or adopted (f) E10 means a gasoline-ethanol by voluntary consensus standards adding a new paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C) to read as follows: blend that contains between 9 and 10 bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide volume percent ethanol. Congress, through OMB, explanations § 80.45 Complex emissions model. (g) E15 means a gasoline-ethanol when the Agency decides not to use * * * * * blend that contains greater than 10 available and applicable voluntary (c) * * * volume percent ethanol and not more consensus standards. (1) * * * than 15 volume percent ethanol. This proposed rulemaking does not (iii) * * * (h) EX means a gasoline-ethanol blend involve technical standards. Therefore, (C) During Phase II, fuels with an that contains less than 9 volume percent EPA is not considering the use of any ethanol concentration greater than 10 ethanol where X equals the maximum voluntary consensus standards. volume percent and not more than 15 volume percent ethanol in the gasoline- J. Executive Order 12898: Federal volume percent shall be evaluated with ethanol blend. Actions To Address Environmental the OXY fuel parameter set equal to 4.0 (i) EXX means a gasoline-ethanol Justice in Minority Populations and percent by weight when calculating blend above E15 where XX equals the Low-Income Populations VOCE using the equations described in maximum volume percent ethanol in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this the gasoline-ethanol blend. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR section. (j) Ethanol blender has the same 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal * * * * * meaning as defined in § 80.2(v). executive policy on environmental 3. A new subpart N is added to read (k) Ethanol importer means a person justice. Its main provision directs as follows: who brings ethanol into the United Federal agencies, to the greatest extent States (including from the practicable and permitted by law, to Subpart N—Additional Requirements for Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Gasoline-Ethanol Blends make environmental justice part of their Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, mission by identifying and addressing, Sec. and the Northern Mariana Islands) for as appropriate, disproportionately high 80.1500 Definitions. use in motor vehicles and nonroad and adverse human health or 80.1501 What are the labeling requirements engines. that apply to retailers and wholesale environmental effects of their programs, (l) Ethanol producer means any policies, and activities on minority purchaser-consumers of gasoline-ethanol blends that contain greater than 10 person who owns, leases, operates, populations and low-income volume percent ethanol and not more controls, or supervises a facility that populations in the United States. than 15 volume percent ethanol? produces ethanol for use in motor EPA has determined that this 80.1502 What are the survey requirements vehicles and nonroad engines. proposed rule will not have for gasoline-ethanol blends? (m) Flex-fuel vehicle has the same disproportionately high and adverse 80.1503 What are the product transfer meaning as flexible-fuel vehicle as human health or environmental effects document requirements for gasoline- defined in § 86.1803–01. on minority or low-income populations ethanol blends, base gasolines, and (n) Fuel dispenser means the because it increases the level of conventional blendstocks for oxygenate apparatus used to dispense fuel into the environmental protection for all affected blending subject to this subpart? 80.1504 What acts are prohibited under this fuel tank that is used to power a motor populations without having any subpart? vehicle or a nonroad engine, and that is disproportionately high and adverse 80.1505 Who is liable for violations of this attached to a motor vehicle or nonroad human health or environmental effects subpart? engine. on any population, including any 80.1506 What penalties apply under this (o) Gasoline has the same meaning as minority or low-income population. subpart? defined in § 80.2(c). This action would affect all gasoline 80.1507 What are the defenses for acts (p) Gasoline importer means an stations that choose to sell E15 and prohibited under this subpart? importer as defined in § 80.2(r) that therefore will not affect any particular 80.1508 What evidence may be used to imports gasoline or gasoline blending area disproportionately. determine compliance with the stocks that could become gasoline solely requirements of this subpart and liability for violations of this subpart? upon the addition of oxygenates. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 (q) Gasoline refiner means a refiner as Environmental protection, Air Subpart N—Additional Provisions for defined as in § 80.2(i) that produces pollution control, Fuel additives, Diesel, Gasoline-Ethanol Blends gasoline or gasoline blending stocks that Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by could become gasoline solely upon the reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle § 80.1500 Definitions. addition of oxygenates. pollution, Penalties, Reporting and All of the definitions in § 80.2 apply (r) Oxygenate blender has the same recordkeeping requirements. to this subpart. As used in this subpart: meaning as defined in § 80.2(mm).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68086 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

(s) Oxygenate blending facility has the (ii) The ethanol content ‘‘This fuel (iv) One survey during the period same meaning as defined in § 80.2(ll). contains 15% ethanol maximum’’ shall October 1 through December 31. (t) Regulatory control periods has the be in 14 point, white, Arial font. (2) The survey program plan shall same meaning as defined in (iii) All other text on the label shall meet the general requirements of § 80.27(a)(1). Regulatory control periods appear in 14-point, black, Arial font, paragraph (b)(4) of this section. is defined in § 80.27(a)(1) to mean June except that the word ‘‘prohibits’’ shall (b) Survey option 2. 1 to September 15 for retail outlets and appear in 14-point, black, bold, italic, (1) To comply with the requirements wholesale purchaser-consumers and Arial font. under this paragraph (b), ethanol May 1 to September 15 for all other (4) Color. (i) The background for the blenders, ethanol producers, ethanol facilities. area which includes the word importers, gasoline refiners, and (u) Retail outlet has the same meaning ‘‘CAUTION!’’, and the ethanol content gasoline importers must participate in as defined § 80.2(j). ‘‘This fuel contains 15% ethanol the funding of a consortium which maximum’’ shall be 1-inch wide and (v) Retailer has the same meaning as arranges to have an independent survey neon-orange in color, except that a defined in § 80.2(k). association conduct a statistically valid rectangular white background large program of compliance surveys (w) Survey series means the four enough to encompass the word quarterly surveys that comprise a survey pursuant to a survey program plan ‘‘CAUTION!’’ shall be superimposed on which has been approved by EPA, in program. this neon-orange background. (x) Sampling strata means the three accordance with the requirements of (ii) The background for all other text paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) and types of areas sampled during a survey on the label shall be white. (b)(6) of this section. which include the following: (iii) The label shall have a 1⁄16-inch (1) Densely populated areas; neon-orange three-sided border to the (2) General requirements. The (2) Transportation corridors; and left, right, and bottom of the area which consortium survey program under this paragraph (b) must be: (3) Rural areas. includes the text described in paragraph (i) Planned and conducted by a survey (y) Wholesale purchaser-consumer (b)(3)(iii) of this section. This border association that is independent of the has the same meaning as defined in shall be attached to the neon-orange ethanol blenders, ethanol producers, § 80.2(o). background area described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section. ethanol importers, gasoline refiners, § 80.1501 What are the labeling (iv) The label shall have a 1⁄16-inch and/or gasoline importers that arrange requirements that apply to retailers and white border, located to the outside of to have the survey conducted. In order wholesale purchaser-consumers of the neon-orange border described in to be considered independent: gasoline-ethanol blends that contain paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section and (A) Representatives of the survey greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and association shall not be an employee of not more than 15 volume percent ethanol? neon-orange background area described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section. any ethanol blender, ethanol producer, (a) Any retailer or wholesale ethanol importer, gasoline refiner, or purchaser-consumer who sells, § 80.1502 What are the survey gasoline importer; dispenses, or offers for sale or requirements related to gasoline-ethanol (B) The survey association shall be blends? dispensing, gasoline-ethanol blends that free from any obligation to or interest in contain greater than 10 volume percent No responsible party identified in any ethanol blender, ethanol producer, ethanol and not more than 15 volume paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section ethanol importer, gasoline refiner, or percent ethanol shall affix the following shall introduce E15 into commerce until gasoline importer; and conspicuous and legible label to the fuel the survey program requirements in (C) The ethanol blenders, ethanol dispenser: either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) in producers, ethanol importers, gasoline this section are satisfied. refiners, and/or gasoline importers that CAUTION! (a) Survey option 1. In order to satisfy arrange to have the survey conducted This fuel contains 15% ethanol maximum the survey program requirements, any Use only in: shall be free from any obligation to or gasoline refiner, gasoline importer, 2007 and newer gasoline cars interest in the survey association. ethanol blender, ethanol producer, or 2007 and newer light-duty trucks (ii) Conducted at retail outlets that ethanol importer shall properly conduct Flex-fuel vehicles sell gasoline; and a program of compliance surveys in This fuel might damage other vehicles and (iii) Represent all gasoline dispensed engines. Federal law prohibits its use in accordance with a survey program plan all other vehicles and engines which has been approved by EPA in all nationwide. (3) Independent Survey Association (b) Labels shall meet the following areas which may be supplied with their gasoline, blendstock for oxygenate Requirements. The consortium requirements for appearance and described in paragraph (b)(1) of this placement: blending, ethanol, or gasoline-ethanol blend if these may be used to section shall require the independent (1) Dimensions. The label shall manufacture E15 or as E15. Such survey association conducting the measure 3 and 5⁄8 inches wide by 3 and approval shall be based upon the survey surveys to: 1⁄8 inches high. program plan meeting the following (i) Submit to EPA for approval each (2) Placement. The label shall be criteria: calendar year a proposed survey placed on the upper two-thirds of each (1) The survey program shall consist program plan in accordance with the fuel dispenser in a location that is of at least four quarterly surveys which requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of this clearly visible to the consumer. shall occur during the following time section. (3) Text. The text shall be centered periods: (ii) Obtain samples of gasoline offered and the appropriate font and (i) One survey during the period for sale at gasoline retail outlets in background shall be used as described January 1 through March 31; accordance with the survey program in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) and (ii) One survey during the period plan approved under this paragraph (b), (b)(4)(i) through (iv). April 1 through June 30; or immediately notify EPA of any (i) The word ‘‘CAUTION!’’ shall be in (iii) One survey during the period July refusal of retail outlets to allow samples 24-point, dark red, bold, Arial font. 1 through September 30; and to be taken.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68087

(iii) Test, or arrange to be tested, the mail or facsimile) and, if requested by (iii) No advance notice of surveys. samples required under paragraph the identified contact person, by The survey plan shall include (b)(3)(ii) of this section for oxygenate telephone. procedures to keep the identification of content as follows: (v) Confirm that each fuel dispenser the sampling areas that are included in (A) Samples collected at retail outlets sampled is labeled as required in any survey plan confidential from any shall be shipped the same day the § 80.1501 by confirming that: regulated party prior to the beginning of samples are collected via overnight (A) The label meets the appearance a survey in an area. However, this service to the laboratory and analyzed and content requirements of § 80.1501. information should not be kept for oxygenate content within 24 hours (B) The label is located on the fuel confidential from EPA. after receipt of the sample in the dispenser according to the requirements laboratory. in § 80.1501. (iv) Retail outlet selection. (B) Any laboratory to be used by the (vi) In the case of a fuel dispenser that (A) The retail outlets to be sampled in independent survey association for is improperly labeled, the survey a sampling area shall be selected from oxygenate testing shall be approved by association shall provide notice as among all retail outlets in the sampling EPA and its test method for determining provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)(A) area that sell gasoline, with the oxygenate content shall be a method through (C) of this section. probability of selection proportionate to permitted under § 80.46(g). (vii) Provide to EPA quarterly and the volume of gasoline sold at the retail (iv) In the case of any test that yields annual summary survey reports which outlets; the sample should also include a result that does not match the label include the information specified in retail outlets with different brand names affixed to the product (e.g., a sample paragraph (b)(5) of this section. as well as those retail outlets that are greater than 15 volume percent ethanol (viii) Maintain all records relating to unbranded. dispensed from a fuel dispenser labeled the surveys conducted under this as ‘‘E15’’ or a sample containing greater paragraph (b) for a period of at least five (B) In the case of any retail outlet from than 10 volume percent ethanol and not (5) years. which a sample of gasoline was more than 15 volume percent ethanol (ix) Permit any representative of EPA collected during a survey and dispensed from a fuel dispenser not to monitor at any time the conducting determined to have an ethanol content labeled as ‘‘E15’’), the independent of the surveys, including sample that does not match the fuel dispenser survey association shall, within 24 collection, transportation, storage, and label (e.g. a sample greater than 15 hours after the laboratory receives the analysis. volume percent ethanol dispensed from sample, send notification of the test (4) Survey Plan Design Requirements. a fuel dispenser labeled as ‘‘E15’’ or a result as follows: The proposed survey program plan sample with greater than 10 volume (A) In the case of a sample collected required under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this percent ethanol and not more than 15 at a retail outlet at which the brand section shall, at a minimum, include the volume percent ethanol dispensed from name of a gasoline refiner or gasoline following: a fuel dispenser not labeled as ‘‘E15’’), importer is displayed, to the gasoline (i) Number of Surveys. The survey that retail outlet shall be included in the refiner or gasoline importer, and EPA. program plan shall include four subsequent survey. This initial notification to a gasoline quarterly surveys each calendar year. (C) One sample of each product refiner or gasoline importer shall The four quarterly surveys collectively dispensed as gasoline shall be collected include specific information concerning are called the survey series as defined at each retail outlet, and separate the name and address of the retail in § 80.1500. samples shall be taken that represent the outlet, contact information, the brand, (ii) Sampling Areas. The survey gasoline contained in each gasoline and the ethanol content of the sample. program plan shall include sampling in storage tank unless collection of (B) In the case of a sample collected all sampling strata, as defined in separate samples is not practicable. at other retail outlets, to the retailer and § 80.1500, during each survey. These EPA. sampling strata shall be further divided (v) Number of samples. (C) The independent survey into discrete sampling areas or clusters. (A) The minimum number of samples association shall provide notice to the Each survey shall include sampling in at to be included in the survey plan for identified contact person or persons for least 40 sampling areas in each stratum each calendar year shall be calculated as each party in writing (which includes e- which are randomly selected. follows:

2 ⎛ 2 ⎞⎫ =+⎡ ⎤ ⎡ − ⎤ ∗ ∗∗∗∗ n{⎣() Zαβ Z ⎦ ⎜ 4*arc sin()φφ1 arc sin()0 ⎟⎬ Stn FFSuab n ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ ⎠⎭

Where: 5% or more of the stations, within a Fa = adjustment factor for the number of extra n = minimum number of samples in a year- stratum such that the region is samples required to compensate for long survey series. However, in no case considered non-compliant. For this collected samples that cannot be shall n be smaller than 7,500. survey, j1 will be 5%. included in the survey, based on the Zα = upper percentile point from the normal j0 = the underlying proportion of non- number of additional samples required distribution to achieve a one-tailed 95% compliant stations in a sample. For the during the previous four surveys. confidence level (5% a-level). Thus, Zα first survey plan, j0 will be 2.3%. For However, in no case shall the value of Fa equals 1.645. subsequent survey plans j0, will be the be smaller than 1.1. Zβ = upper percentile point to achieve 95% average of the proportion of stations Fb = adjustment factor for the number of power. Thus, Zβ equals 1.645. found to be non-compliant over the samples required to resample each retail j1 = the maximum proportion of non- previous four surveys. outlet with test results exceeding the compliant stations for a region to be Stn = number of sampling strata. For labeled amount (e.g. a sample greater deemed compliant. In this test, the purposes of this survey program, Stn than 15 volume percent ethanol parameter needs to be 5% or greater, i.e., equals 3. dispensed from a fuel dispenser labeled

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP04NO10.006 68088 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

as ‘‘E15’’ or a sample with greater than 10 a calendar year basis. The procedure for (ii) For subsequent years in which a volume percent ethanol and not more obtaining EPA approval of a survey survey program will be conducted, no than 15 volume percent ethanol program plan under this paragraph (b), later than December 1 of the year dispensed from a fuel dispenser not and for revocation of such approval, is preceding the year in which the survey labeled as ‘‘E15’’), based on the rate of resampling required during the previous as follows: will be conducted, the contract with the four surveys. However, in no case shall (i) For the first year in which a survey independent surveyor shall be in effect, the value of Fb be smaller than 1.1. will be conducted, a survey program and an amount of money necessary to Sun = number of surveys per year. For plan that complies with the carry out the entire survey plan shall be purposes of this survey program, Sun requirements of this paragraph (b) must paid to the independent surveyor or equals 4. be submitted to EPA no later than 60 placed into an escrow account with (B) The number of samples days prior to the date on which the instructions to the escrow agent to pay determined pursuant to paragraph survey program is to begin. the money to the independent surveyor (b)(4)(v)(A) of this section, after being (ii) For subsequent years in which a during the course of the conduct of the incremented as necessary to allocate survey will be conducted, a survey survey plan. whole numbers of samples to each program plan that complies with the (iii) For the first year in which a cluster, shall be distributed requirements of this paragraph (b) must survey program will be conducted, no approximately equally for the quarterly be submitted to EPA no later than later than 15 days preceding the start of surveys conducted during the calendar November 1 of the year preceding the the survey EPA must receive a copy of year. calendar year in which the survey will the contract with the independent (5) Summary survey reports. The be conducted. surveyor and proof that the money quarterly and annual summary survey (iii) The survey program plan must be necessary to carry out the survey plan reports required under paragraph signed by a responsible officer of the has either been paid to the independent (b)(3)(vii) of this section shall include consortium which arranges to have an surveyor or placed into an escrow the following information: independent surveyor conduct the account; if the money has been placed (i) An identification of the parties that survey program. into an escrow account, a copy of the are participating in the survey. (iv) The survey program plan must be escrow agreement must to be sent to the (ii) The identification of each sent to the following address: Director, official designated in paragraph sampling area included in a survey and Compliance and Innovative Strategies (b)(6)(iv) of this section. the dates that the samples were Division, U.S. Environmental Protection (iv) For subsequent years in which a collected in that area. Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., survey program will be conducted, no (iii) For each retail outlet sampled: Mail Code 6506J, Washington, DC later than December 15 of the year (A) The identification of the retail 20460. preceding the year in which the survey outlet; (v) EPA will send a letter to the party will be conducted, EPA must receive a (B) The gasoline refiner or gasoline submitting the survey program plan that copy of the contract with the importer brand name displayed, if any; indicates whether EPA approves or independent surveyor and proof that the (C) The fuel dispenser labeling (e.g., disapproves the survey plan. money necessary to carry out the survey ‘‘E15’’); (vi) EPA may revoke its approval of a plan has either been paid to the (D) The sample test result for survey plan if EPA determines that the independent surveyor or placed into an oxygenate content; and requirements in this section have not escrow account; if placed into an escrow (E) The test method used to determine been complied with, or that the account, a copy of the escrow agreement oxygenate content under § 80.46(g). provisions of the survey plan approved must be sent to the official designated (iv) Ethanol level summary statistics by EPA pursuant to paragraph (b)(6)(v) in paragraph (b)(6)(iv) of this section. by brand and unbranded for each of this section have not been diligently (8) Failure to fulfill requirements. A sampling area, strata, and survey series. implemented. failure to fulfill or cause to be fulfilled These summary statistics shall: (vii) The approving official for a any of the requirements of this (A) Include the number of samples, survey plan under this section is the paragraph (b) is a prohibited act under the average, median and range of Director of the Compliance and Clean Air Act section 211(c) and ethanol content, expressed in volume Innovative Strategies Division, Office of § 80.1504. percent. Transportation and Air Quality. § 80.1503 What are the product transfer (B) [Reserved] (viii) Any notifications or reports document requirements for gasoline- (v) The quarterly reports required required to be submitted to EPA under ethanol blends, base gasolines, and under this paragraph (b)(5) are due 60 this paragraph (b) must be directed to conventional blendstocks for oxygenate days following the end of the quarter. the official designated in paragraph blending subject to this subpart? The annual reports required under this (b)(6)(iv) of this section. (a) Product transfer documentation paragraph (b)(5) are due 60 days (7) Independent surveyor contract. for conventional blendstock for following the end of the calendar year. (i) For the first year in which a survey oxygenate blending, or base gasoline (vi) The reports required under this program will be conducted, no later transferred upstream of an ethanol paragraph (b)(5) shall be submitted to than 30 days preceding the start of the blending facility. EPA in an electronic spreadsheet. survey, the contract with the (1) In addition to any other product (6) Procedures for obtaining approval independent surveyor shall be in effect, transfer document requirements under of survey plan. The first year in which and an amount of money necessary to 40 CFR part 80, on each occasion when a survey program is conducted may carry out the entire survey plan shall be any person transfers custody or title to consist of only a portion of a calendar paid to the independent surveyor or any conventional blendstock for year ending on December 31 (i.e. in the placed into an escrow account with oxygenate blending which could initial year, a survey program may begin instructions to the escrow agent to pay become conventional gasoline solely on a date after January 1, but would still the money to the independent surveyor upon the addition of ethanol, or base end on December 31). Subsequent during the course of the conduct of the gasoline upstream of an oxygenate survey programs shall be conducted on survey plan. blending facility, as defined in § 80.2(ll),

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68089

the transferor shall provide to the accurately describes the gasoline- light duty gasoline motor vehicle, any transferee product transfer documents ethanol blend. The information heavy-duty gasoline motor vehicle or which include the following regarding the ethanol content of the fuel engine, any highway or off-highway information: is required year-round. The information motorcycle, or any gasoline-powered (i) The name and address of the regarding the RVP of the fuel is only nonroad engines, vehicles or equipment; transferor; required for gasoline during the (2) Notwithstanding § 80.1504(a)(1), (ii) The name and address of the regulatory control periods defined in no person shall be prohibited from transferee; § 80.27(a)(1). selling, introducing, or causing or (iii) The volume of conventional (A) For gasoline containing no ethanol allowing the sale or introduction of blendstock for oxygenate blending or (E0), the following statement: ‘‘E0: gasoline containing greater than 10 gasoline being transferred; Contains no ethanol. The RVP does not volume % ethanol into any flex-fuel (iv) The location of the conventional exceed [fill in appropriate value] psi.’’ vehicle. blendstock for oxygenate blending or (B) For gasoline containing less than (b) Sell, offer for sale, dispense, or gasoline at the time of the transfer; 9 volume percent ethanol, the following otherwise make available at a retail or (v) The date of the transfer; statement: ‘‘EX—Contains up to X% wholesale purchaser-consumer facility a (vi) For gasoline during the regulatory ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [fill gasoline-ethanol blend that is not control periods defined in § 80.27(a)(1): ’’ (A) The maximum Reid Vapor in appropriate value] psi. The term X correctly labeled as to its ethanol Pressure (RVP), as determined by a refers to the maximum volume percent content in accordance with § 80.1501; (c) Fail to fulfill, or cause a failure of method permitted under § 80.46(c), ethanol present in the gasoline. (C) For gasoline containing between 9 the fulfillment of, any survey required stated in the following format: ‘‘The RVP and 10 volume percent ethanol (E10), of this base gasoline does not exceed under § 80.1502; ‘‘ (d) Fail to generate, use, transfer and [fill in appropriate value]’’; and the following statement: E10: Contains (B) For base gasoline designed for the between 9 and 10 volume percent maintain product transfer documents special provisions for gasoline-ethanol ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [fill that accurately reflect the type of blends in § 80.27(d)(2), information in appropriate value] psi.’’ product, ethanol content, maximum about the suitable ethanol content stated (D) For gasoline containing greater Reid Vapor pressure (RVP), and other in the following format: ‘‘Designed for than 10 volume percent and not more information required under § 80.1503; the special RVP provisions for ethanol than 15 volume percent ethanol (E15), (e) Improperly blend, or cause the blends that contain between 9 and 10 the following statement: ‘‘E15: Contains improper blending of, ethanol into volume % ethanol.’’ up to 15 volume percent ethanol. The conventional blendstock for oxygenate (C) For base gasoline not described in RVP does not exceed [fill in appropriate blending, base gasoline or gasoline paragraph (a)(vi)(B) of this section, value] psi;’’ or already containing ethanol, in a manner information regarding the suitable (E) For all other gasoline that contains inconsistent with the information on the ethanol content, stated in the following ethanol, the following statement: product transfer document under format: ‘‘Suitable for blending with ‘‘EXX—Contains no more than XX% § 80.1503(a)(1)(vi) or § 80.1503(b)(1)(vi); ethanol at a concentration of no more ethanol,’’ where XX equals the volume (f) For gasoline during the regulatory than 15 volume percent ethanol.’’ % ethanol. control periods defined in § 80.27(a)(1), (2) The requirements in paragraph (2) Except for transfers to truck combine any base gasoline or (a)(1) do not apply to reformulated carriers, retailers, or wholesale conventional blendstock for oxygenate gasoline blendstock for oxygenate purchaser-consumers, product codes blending intended for blending with blending, as defined in § 80.2(kk), may be used to convey the information E10 that took advantage of the 1 psi which are subject to the product transfer required under paragraph (b)(1) of this waiver applicable for 9–10 volume document requirements of § 80.69 and section if such codes are clearly percent gasoline-ethanol blends with § 80.77. understood by each transferee. any gasoline or conventional blendstock (b) Product transfer documentation (c) The records required by this for oxygenate blending intended for for gasoline transferred downstream of section must be kept by the transferor blending with E15, unless the resultant an oxygenate blending facility. and transferee for five (5) years from the combination is designated, in its (1) In addition to any other product date they were created or received by entirety, as an E10 blendstock for transfer document requirements under each party in the distribution system. oxygenate blending. 40 CFR part 80, on each occasion when (d) On request by EPA, the records (g) For gasoline during the regulatory any person transfers custody or title to required by this section must be made control periods defined in § 80.27(a)(1), any gasoline-ethanol blend downstream available to the Administrator or the combine any gasoline-ethanol blend of an oxygenate blending facility, as Administrator’s authorized containing E10 that took advantage of defined in § 80.2(ll), except for transfers representative. For records that are the 1 psi waiver applicable to 9–10 to the ultimate consumer, the transferor electronically generated or maintained, volume percent gasoline-ethanol blends, shall provide to the transferee product the equipment or software necessary to with any gasoline containing E0 or any transfer documents which include the read the records shall be made available, gasoline blend containing E15. following information: or, if requested by EPA, electronic (h) Fail to meet any other requirement (i) The name and address of the records shall be converted to paper of this subpart. transferor; documents. (i) Cause another person to commit an (ii) The name and address of the act in violation of paragraphs (a) transferee; § 80.1504 What acts are prohibited under through (h) of this section. (iii) The volume of gasoline being this subpart? transferred; No person shall— § 80.1505 Who is liable for violations of (iv) The location of the gasoline at the (a)(1) Sell, introduce, or cause or this subpart? time of the transfer; allow the sale or introduction of (a) Persons liable. Any person who (v) The date of the transfer; and gasoline containing greater than 10 violates § 80.1504(a) through (i) is liable (vi) One of the statements detailed in volume % ethanol (i.e., greater than for the violation. In addition, when the paragraph (b)(1)(vi)(A) though (E) which E10) into any model year 2000 or older gasoline contained in any storage tank at

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68090 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules

any facility owned, leased, operated, (b)(1) Any violation of any indicate that the gasoline met relevant controlled or supervised by any gasoline requirement that pertains to the ethanol requirements; and refiner, gasoline importer, oxygenate content of gasoline shall constitute a (iii)(A) That it has conducted a quality blender, carrier, distributor, reseller, separate day of violation for each and assurance program, including a retailer, or wholesale purchaser- every day such gasoline giving rise to sampling and testing program, as consumer is found in violation of the such violations remains any place in the described in paragraph (b) of this prohibitions described in § 80.1504(a), gasoline distribution system, beginning section; and (c) through (i), the following on the day that the gasoline that violates (B) A carrier may rely on the sampling persons shall be deemed in violation: such requirement is produced or and testing program carried out by (1) Each gasoline refiner, gasoline imported and distributed and/or offered another party, including the party that importer, oxygenate blender, carrier, for sale, and ending on the last day that owns the gasoline in question, provided distributor, reseller, retailer, or any such gasoline is offered for sale or that the sampling and testing program is wholesale purchaser-consumer who is dispensed to any ultimate consumer carried out properly. owns, leases, operates, controls or for use in any motor vehicle, unless the (2)(i) Where a violation is found at a supervises the facility where the violation is corrected by altering the facility which is operating under the violation is found. properties and characteristics of the corporate, trade or brand name of a (2) Each gasoline refiner or gasoline gasoline giving rise to the violations and refiner, that refiner must show, in importer whose corporate, trade, or any mixture of gasolines that contains addition to the defense elements brand name, or whose marketing any of the gasoline giving rise to the required by paragraph (a)(1) of this subsidiary’s corporate, trade, or brand violations such that the gasoline or section, that the violation was caused name, appears at the facility where the mixture of gasolines has the properties by: violation is found. and characteristics that would have (A) An act in violation of law (other (3) Each gasoline refiner, gasoline existed if the gasoline giving rise to the than the Act or this part), or an act of importer, oxygenate blender, distributor, violations had been produced or sabotage or vandalism; and reseller who manufactured, imported in compliance with all (B) The action of any reseller, imported, sold, offered for sale, requirements that pertain to the ethanol distributor, oxygenate blender, carrier, dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, content of gasoline. or a retailer or wholesale purchaser- stored, transported, or caused the (2) For the purposes of this paragraph consumer supplied by any of these transportation of any gasoline which is (b), the length of time the gasoline in persons, in violation of a contractual in the storage tank containing gasoline question remained in the gasoline undertaking imposed by the gasoline found to be in violation. distribution system shall be deemed to refiner designed to prevent such action, (4) Each carrier who dispensed, be twenty-five days; unless the and despite periodic sampling and supplied, stored, or transported any respective party or EPA demonstrates by testing by the gasoline refiner to ensure gasoline which is in the storage tank reasonably specific showings, using compliance with such contractual containing gasoline found to be in direct or circumstantial evidence, that obligation; or violation, provided that EPA the gasoline giving rise to the violations (C) The action of any carrier or other demonstrates, by reasonably specific remained any place in the gasoline distributor not subject to a contract with showings using direct or circumstantial distribution system for fewer than or the gasoline refiner but engaged by the evidence, that the carrier caused the more than twenty-five days. gasoline refiner for transportation of violation. (c) Any violation of any affirmative gasoline, despite specification or (b) For label violations under requirement or prohibition not included inspection of procedures and equipment § 80.1504(b), only the wholesale in paragraph (b) of this section shall by the gasoline refiner which are purchaser-consumer or retailer and the constitute a separate day of violation for reasonably calculated to prevent such branded gasoline refiner or branded each and every day such affirmative action. gasoline importer, if any, shall be liable. requirement is not properly (ii) In this paragraph (a), to show that (c) Each partner to a joint venture, or accomplished, and/or for each and the violation ‘‘was caused’’ by any of the each owner of a facility owned by two every day the prohibited activity specified actions the party must or more owners, is jointly and severally continues. For those violations that may demonstrate by reasonably specific liable for any violation of this subpart be ongoing each and every day the showings using direct or circumstantial that occurs at the joint venture facility prohibited activity continues shall evidence, that the violation was caused or a facility that is owned by the joint constitute a separate day of violation. or must have been caused by another. owners, or a facility that is committed (3) For label violations under by the joint venture operation or any of § 80.1507 What are the defenses for acts § 80.1504(b), the branded gasoline the joint owners of the facility. prohibited under this subpart? refiner or branded gasoline importer (d) Any parent corporation is liable (a) Defenses for prohibited activities. shall not be deemed liable if the for any violations of this subpart that are (1) In any case in which a gasoline requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of this committed by any of its solely-owned refiner, gasoline importer, oxygenate section are met. subsidiaries. blender, carrier, distributor, reseller, (b) Quality assurance program. In retailer, or wholesale purchaser- order to demonstrate an acceptable § 80.1506 What penalties apply under this consumer would be in violation under quality assurance program for gasoline subpart? § 80.1504(a), and (c) through (i) it shall at all points in the gasoline distribution (a) Any person under § 80.1505 who be deemed not in violation if it can network, other than at retail outlets and is liable for a violation under § 80.1504 demonstrate: wholesale purchaser-consumer is subject to an administrative or civil (i) That the violation was not facilities, a party must present evidence penalty, as specified in sections 205 and committed or caused by the regulated of the following in addition to other 211(d) of the Clean Air Act, for every party or its employee or agent; regular appropriate quality assurance day of each such violation and the (ii) That product transfer documents procedures and practices. amount of economic benefit or savings account for all of the gasoline in the (1) A periodic sampling and testing resulting from the violation. storage tank found in violation and program to determine if the gasoline

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68091

contains applicable maximum and/or ordinary course of business concerning based on the ethanol level of the minimum volume percent of ethanol. gasoline quality and delivery. gasoline, measured using the (2) That on each occasion when (4) The periodic sampling and testing methodologies specified in § 80.46(g). gasoline is found in noncompliance program specified in paragraph (b)(1) of Any evidence or information, including with one of the requirements referred to this section shall be deemed to have the exclusive use of such evidence or in paragraph (b)(1) of this section: been in effect during the relevant time information, may be used to establish (i) The party immediately ceases period for any party, including branded the ethanol content of gasoline if the selling, offering for sale, dispensing, gasoline refiners and branded gasoline evidence or information is relevant to supplying, offering for supply, storing, importers, if: whether the ethanol content of gasoline transporting, or causing the (i) An EPA approved survey program would have been in compliance with transportation of the violating product; under § 80.1502 was in effect and was the requirements of this subpart if the and executed fully and properly; appropriate sampling and testing (ii) The party promptly remedies the (ii) Any retailer at which a violation methodology had been correctly violation (such as by removing the was discovered allowed survey performed. Such evidence may be violating product or adding more inspectors to take samples and inspect obtained from any source or location complying product until the applicable labels; and and may include, but is not limited to, requirements are achieved). (iii) For truck loading terminals and test results using methods other than (3) An oversight program conducted truck distributors that perform those specified in § 80.46(g), business by a carrier under paragraph (b)(1) of oxygenate blending, additional quality records, and commercial documents. this section need not include periodic assurance procedures and practices sampling and testing of gasoline in a (b) Determinations of compliance were in place, such as regular checks to tank truck operated by a common with the requirements of this subpart reconcile volumes of ethanol in carrier, but in lieu of such tank truck other than those pertaining to the inventory and regular checks of sampling and testing the common ethanol content of gasoline, and equipment for proper ethanol blend carrier shall demonstrate evidence of an determinations of liability for any rates. oversight program for monitoring violation of this subpart, may be based compliance with the requirements of § 80.1508 What evidence may be used to on information obtained from any § 80.1504 relating to the transport or determine compliance with the source or location. Such information storage of gasoline by tank truck, such requirements of this subpart and liability for may include, but is not limited to, as appropriate guidance to drivers on violations of this subpart? business records and commercial compliance with applicable (a) Compliance with the requirements documents. requirements and the periodic review of of this subpart pertaining to the ethanol [FR Doc. 2010–27446 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] records normally received in the content of gasoline shall be determined BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NOP2.SGM 04NOP2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Thursday, November 4, 2010

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency Partial Grant and Partial Denial of Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by Growth Energy To Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the Administrator; Notice

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68094 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION mail) address for the Air and Radiation b. Public Comment Summary AGENCY Docket is: [email protected], the c. EPA Analysis telephone number is (202) 566–1742 d. Conclusion [EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211; FRL–9215–5] and the fax number is (202) 566–9744. 3. Evaporative Emissions on MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles Partial Grant and Partial Denial of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a. Introduction Clean Air Act Waiver Application Robert Anderson, Office of b. Growth Energy’s Submission Submitted by Growth Energy To Transportation and Air Quality, c. Public Comment Summary Increase the Allowable Ethanol Mailcode: 6405J, Environmental d. EPA Analysis Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania e. Conclusion 4. Materials Compatibility for MY2007 and Decision of the Administrator Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9718; fax Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles a. Introduction AGENCY: Environmental Protection number: (202) 343–2800; e-mail Agency. b. Growth Energy’s Submission address: [email protected]. c. Public Comment Summary ACTION: Notice of partial waiver SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: d. EPA Analysis decision. e. Conclusions Table of Contents 5. Driveability and Operability for MY2007 SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection I. Executive Summary and Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles Agency (EPA) is partially granting • MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor a. Introduction Growth Energy’s waiver request Vehicles b. Growth Energy’s Submission application submitted under section • Durability/Long-Term Exhaust c. Public Comment Summary 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act. This Emissions d. EPA Analysis partial waiver allows fuel and fuel • Immediate Exhaust Emissions e. Conclusions • Evaporative Emissions 6. Overall Immediate and Long-Term additive manufacturers to introduce into • Emissions Conclusions commerce gasoline that contains greater Materials Compatibility • Drivability and Operability B. MY2001–2006 Light-Duty Motor than 10 volume percent ethanol and no • MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor Vehicles more than 15 volume percent ethanol Vehicles C. MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor (E15) for use in certain motor vehicles • MY2001–2006 Light-Duty Motor Vehicles if certain conditions are fulfilled. We are Vehicles 1. Growth Energy’s Submission partially approving the waiver for and • Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and 2. Public Comment Summary allowing the introduction into Equipment (Nonroad Products) 3. EPA Analysis and Conclusion • commerce of E15 for use only in model Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and a. Scope of MY2000 and Older Motor Vehicles Data to Support a Waiver year 2007 and newer light-duty motor Vehicles • Highway and Off-Highway Motorcycles Decision vehicles, which includes passenger cars, • Conditions on Today’s Partial Waiver b. Exhaust Emissions—Long-Term light-duty trucks and medium-duty • Misfueling Mitigation Measures Notice Durability passenger vehicles. We are denying the of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) i. General Exhaust Emissions Durability waiver for introduction of E15 for use in II. Introduction Concerns model year 2000 and older light-duty A. Statutory Background ii. Immediate Exhaust Emission Impacts motor vehicles, as well as all heavy-duty B. Growth Energy Application and Review c. Evaporative Emissions gasoline engines and vehicles, highway Process d. Materials Compatibility and off-highway motorcycles, and C. Today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking V. Nonroad Engines, Vehicles and Equipment (NPRM) on Misfueling Mitigation (Nonroad Products) nonroad engines, vehicles, and Measures A. Introduction equipment. The Agency is deferring a III. Method of Review B. Growth Energy Submission decision on the applicability of a waiver IV. Waiver Submissions and Analysis of C. Public Comment Summary to model year 2001 through 2006 light- Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Issues D. EPA Analysis duty motor vehicles until additional test A. MY2007 and Newer Motor Vehicles 1. Scope of Nonroad Data to Support a data, currently under development, is 1. Exhaust Emissions—Long-Term Waiver Decision available. Durability 2. Long-Term Exhaust Emissions a. Growth Energy’s Submission (Durability) ADDRESSES: EPA has established a b. Public Comment Summary 3. Immediate Exhaust Emission Effects docket for this action under Docket ID c. EPA Response Regarding the Need for 4. Evaporative Emissions No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211. All Long-Term Exhaust Emissions 5. Materials Compatibility documents and public comments in the (Durability) Testing 6. Driveability and Operability docket are listed on the http:// i. General Long-term Exhaust Emissions E. Conclusion www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly (Durability) Concerns VI. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and available docket materials are available ii. Response to Growth Energy’s First Vehicles Argument VII. Motorcycles either electronically through http:// iii. Conclusion to Growth Energy’s Second VIII. E12 Midlevel Ethanol Blends www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Argument A. First Argument: E12 Is Already Used in the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA d. Durability Studies and EPA Analysis the Marketplace With No Reported Headquarters Library, EPA West i. DOE Catalyst Study Overview Problems Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution ii. Vehicle Selection and Matching 1. ADM Argument Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public iii. Fuels and Blending 2. Comments Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to iv. Emissions Test Protocol 3. EPA Analysis 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, v. Mileage Accumulation B. Second Argument: EPA Effectively excluding holidays. The telephone vi. Powertrain Component Inspection Allows Ethanol Blends Greater Than E10 vii. Summary and Conclusions of the Final 1. ADM Argument number for the Reading Room is (202) Results of the DOE Catalyst Study 2. EPA Analysis 566–1744. The Air and Radiation 2. Exhaust Emissions—Immediate Effects C. Third Argument: EPA’s Models Allow Docket and Information Center’s Web for MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor Greater Than 10 vol% Ethanol site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/ Vehicles 1. ADM Argument docket.html. The electronic mail (e- a. Growth Energy’s Submission 2. API and Alliance Comments

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68095

3. EPA Analysis light-duty motor vehicles, as well as covering a wide range of highway and D. Fourth Argument: ADM’s Argument for heavy-duty gasoline highway engines nonroad vehicles, engines, and an E12 Waiver and vehicles (e.g., delivery trucks). equipment would be necessary for 1. ADM Argument Highway and off-highway motorcycles, approval of an E15 waiver that would 2. API, AllSAFE and Alliance Comments 3. EPA Response and nonroad engines, vehicles, and allow E15 to be introduced into E. Fifth Argument: E12 Is ‘‘Substantially equipment (nonroad products; e.g., commerce for use in all motor vehicles Similar’’ to Certification Fuel boats, snowmobiles, and lawnmowers) and all other engines and vehicles using 1. ADM Argument typically use the same gasoline as motor vehicle gasoline (‘‘full waiver’’). 2. API, AllSAFE and Alliance Comments highway motor vehicles; this decision is Growth Energy did not provide the 3. EPA Response also a denial of a waiver for introducing necessary information to support a full F. EPA Conclusion motor vehicle gasoline into commerce waiver in several key areas, especially IX. Legal Issues Arising in This Partial containing more than 10 vol% ethanol long-term durability emissions data Waiver Decision A. Partial Waiver and Conditions of E15 for use in all of those products. The necessary to ensure that all motor Use Agency is deferring a decision on the vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline highway B. Notice and Comment Procedures applicability of a waiver with respect to engines and vehicles, highway and off- C. ‘‘Useful Life’’ Language in Section MY2001–2006 light-duty motor vehicles highway motorcycles and nonroad 211(f)(4) to await additional test data. The products would continue to comply X. Waiver Conditions Department of Energy (DOE) has stated with their emission standards over their A. Fuel Quality Conditions that it will complete testing on these full useful life. In 2008, DOE began B. Misfueling Mitigation Conditions and vehicles in November, after which EPA emissions durability testing on 19 Tier Strategies 1. Fuel Pump Dispenser Labeling will take appropriate action. 2 motor vehicle models that would 2. Fuel Pump Labeling and Fuel Sample To help ensure that E15 is only used provide this data for MY2007 and newer Survey in MY2007 and newer light-duty motor light-duty motor vehicles (‘‘DOE Catalyst 3. Proper Documentation of Ethanol vehicles, EPA has developed a proposed Study’’).2 Consequently, the Agency Content on Product Transfer Documents rule (described below) with the express delayed a decision until the DOE test 4. Public Outreach purpose of mitigating the potential for program was completed for these motor XI. Reid Vapor Pressure misfueling of E15 into vehicles and vehicles in September 2010. XII. Partial Waiver Decision and Conditions engines not approved for its use. EPA EPA reached its decision on the I. Executive Summary believes the proposed safeguards against waiver request based on the results of misfueling would provide the most the DOE Catalyst Study and other In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54 practical way to mitigate the potential information and test data submitted by ethanol manufacturers petitioned the for misfueling with E15. Moreover, the Growth Energy and in public comments. Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule, when adopted, would EPA also applied engineering judgment, (‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘The Agency’’) to allow the satisfy the misfueling mitigation based on the data in reaching its introduction into commerce of up to 15 conditions of today’s partial waiver decision. Specifically, consistent with volume percent (vol%) ethanol in described below and would promote the past waiver decisions, the Agency gasoline. In April 2009, EPA sought successful introduction of E15 into evaluated Growth Energy’s waiver public comment on the Growth Energy commerce. However, if parties covered request and made its decision based on petition and subsequently received by this waiver (fuel and fuel additive four factors: (1) Exhaust emissions about 78,000 comments. Prior to today’s manufacturers, which include impacts—long-term (known as action, ethanol was limited to 10 vol% renewable fuel producers and importers, durability) and immediate; (2) in motor vehicle gasoline (E10). petroleum refiners and importers, and evaporative system impacts—both In today’s action, EPA is partially ethanol blenders) desire to introduce immediate and long-term; (3) the impact granting Growth Energy’s waiver request E15 into commerce prior to a final rule of materials compatibility on emissions; based on our careful analysis of the being issued, they may do so provided and, (4) the impact of drivability and available information, including test they submit and EPA approves a plan operability on emissions. The Agency’s data and public comments. This partial that demonstrates that the misfueling conclusions are summarized below and grant waives the prohibition on fuel and mitigation conditions will be satisfied. additional information on each subject fuel additive manufacturers on the In addition to the misfueling mitigation is provided later in this decision introduction into commerce of gasoline conditions, E15 must also meet certain document. containing greater than 10 vol% ethanol fuel quality specifications before it may MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor and no more than 15 vol% ethanol (E15) be introduced into commerce. for use in certain motor vehicles. More To receive a waiver, as prescribed by Vehicles specifically, today’s action has two the Clean Air Act, a fuel or fuel additive For MY2007 and newer light-duty components. First, we are approving the manufacturer must demonstrate that a motor vehicles, the DOE Catalyst Study waiver for and allowing the new fuel or fuel additive will not cause and other information before EPA introduction into commerce of E15 for or contribute to the failure of an engine adequately demonstrates that the impact use in Model Year (MY) 2007 and newer or vehicle to achieve compliance with of E15 on overall emissions, including light-duty motor vehicles, which the emission standards to which it has both immediate 3 and durability related includes passenger cars, light-duty been certified over its useful life. trucks, and medium-duty passenger Reflecting that EPA’s emission 2 DOE embarked on the study, in consultation vehicles.1 Second, we are denying the standards have continued to evolve and with EPA, auto manufacturers, fuel providers and waiver for introduction into commerce others, after enactment of the Energy Independence become more stringent over time, the in- and Security Act of 2007, which significantly of E15 for use in MY2000 and older use fleet is composed of vehicles and expanded the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard engines spanning not only different Program for increasing the use of renewable fuels 1 For purposes of today’s decision, ‘‘MY2007 and technologies, but also different in transportation fuel in order to reduce imported newer light-duty motor vehicles’’ include MY2007 petroleum and emissions of greenhouse gases. and newer light-duty motor vehicles (LDV), light- emissions standards. Since ethanol 3 In past waiver decisions, we have referred to duty trucks (LDT), and medium-duty passenger affects different aspects of emissions, a ‘‘immediate’’ emissions as ‘‘instantaneous’’ vehicles (MDPV). wide range of data and information Continued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68096 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

emissions, will not cause or contribute or contribute to the failure of MY2007 information, coupled with the durability to violations of the emissions standards and newer light-duty motor vehicles in test data and conclusions, E15 is not for these motor vehicles. Likewise, the achieving their emissions standards expected to cause Tier 2 motor vehicles data and information adequately show over their useful lives. These results to exceed their exhaust standards over that E15 will not lead to violations of confirm EPA’s engineering assessment their useful lives when operated on E15. that the changes manufacturers made to the evaporative emissions standards, so Evaporative Emissions long as the fuel does not exceed a Reid their motor vehicles (calibration, Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 9.0 psi in the hardware, etc.) to comply with the Both diurnal and running loss summertime control season.4 The Agency’s stringent Tier 2 emission evaporative emissions increase as fuel information on materials compatibility standards (which began to phase in with volatility increases. Diurnal evaporative and drivability also supports this MY2004) have resulted in the capability emissions occur when motor vehicles conclusion. of Tier 2 motor vehicles to are not operating and experience the accommodate the additional change in temperature during the day, Durability/Long-Term Exhaust enleanment caused by E15 and be such as while parked. Running loss Emissions compatible with ethanol concentrations evaporative emissions occur while The DOE Catalyst Study involved 19 up to E15.6. EPA’s certification data motor vehicles are being operated. Reid high sales volume car and light-duty show that all gasoline-fueled cars and Vapor Pressure (RVP) is the common truck models (MY2005–2009 motor light-duty trucks were fully phased in to measure of the volatility of gasoline. E15 vehicles produced by the top U.S. sales- the Tier 2 standards by MY2007 even that meets an RVP limit of 9.0 pounds based automobile manufacturers) that though the program did not require the per square inch (psi) during the summer are all designed for and subject to the phase-in to be complete until MY2009. (which is equal to the RVP of E0) should Tier 2 motor vehicle emission Consequently, EPA believes it not produce higher diurnal or running standards. The purpose of the program appropriate to apply these test results to loss evaporative emissions than E0. We was to evaluate the long term effects of all MY2007 and newer light-duty motor expect MY2007 and newer vehicles to E0 (gasoline that contains no ethanol vehicles. meet evaporative emissions standard on 9.0 psi E15. There are concerns with and is the certification test fuel for Immediate Exhaust Emissions emissions testing), E10, E15, and E20 (a E15 having an RVP greater than 9.0 psi. gasoline-ethanol blend containing 20 Scientific information supports a When ethanol is blended at 15 vol%, a vol% ethanol) on the durability of the conclusion that motor vehicles 10.0 psi RVP fuel compared to 9.0 psi exhaust emissions control system, experience an immediate emissions RVP fuel will have substantially higher especially the catalytic converter impact independent of motor vehicle evaporative emissions levels that must (catalyst), for Tier 2 motor vehicles. age (and therefore emission control be captured by the emissions control Analysis of the motor vehicles’ technology) when operating on gasoline- system (a carbon filled canister and emissions results at full useful life ethanol blends. Nitrogen oxide (NOX) related system elements). This increase (120,000 miles) and emissions emissions generally increase while in evaporative emissions is beyond what deterioration rates showed no volatile organic compound (VOC) and manufacturers have been required to significant difference between the E0 carbon monoxide (CO) emissions control, based on the motor vehicle and E15 fueled groups. Three motor decrease. The available data supports a certification testing for the emissions vehicles aged on EO fuel had failing conclusion that the immediate standards. Test results highlight the emissions impacts of E15 on Tier 2 emissions levels and one additional concern that fuel with an RVP greater motor vehicles are likely to have the motor vehicle failed one of several than 9.0 psi during the summer will same pattern as the immediate replicate tests. One E15-aged motor lead to motor vehicles exceeding their emissions impacts of E10 on older vehicle had failing emissions.5 evaporative emission standards in-use. motor vehicles (i.e., NO emissions However, none of the emissions failures X Additionally, as explained in the increase while VOC and CO emissions appeared to be related to the fuel used. misfueling mitigation measures decrease). Although the magnitude of There were no emissions component or proposed rule, EPA interprets the 1.0 the immediate impact is expected to be material failures during aging that were psi waiver in CAA section 211(h) as slightly greater with E15, Tier 2 motor related to fueling. In addition, a review being limited to gasoline-ethanol blends vehicles generally have a significant of the emission deterioration rates over that contain 10 vol% ethanol. Therefore, compliance margin at the time of given the significant potential for the course of the test program revealed certification and later on in-use (when no statistically significant difference in increased evaporative emissions at they are in customer service) that higher gasoline volatility levels, and the emissions deterioration with E15 in should allow them to meet their comparison to E0. Using standard lack of data to resolve how this would emission standards even if they impact compliance with the emissions statistical tools, the test results support experience the predicted immediate the conclusion that E15 does not cause standards, today’s waiver is limited to NOX increases from E15 when E15 with a summertime RVP no higher compared to E0. The results of the DOE emissions. ‘‘Immediate’’ and ‘‘instantaneous’’ are than 9.0 psi. synonymous in this context. Catalyst Study reflect both the Other potential issues for evaporative 4 EPA regulates the vapor pressure of gasoline immediate emissions effects as well as emissions of motor vehicles operated on sold at retail stations during the summer ozone any durability effects as described E15 are increased permeation and long- season (June 1 to September 15) to reduce above, and the Tier 2 motor vehicles term (durability) impacts.7 Available evaporative emissions from gasoline that contribute continued to comply with their to ground-level ozone and diminish the effects of test data indicate that for Tier 2 motor ozone-related health problems. Gasoline needs a emissions standards at their full useful vehicles any increase in evaporative higher vapor pressure in the wintertime for cold life. As noted above, none of the emissions as a result of permeation is start purposes. emissions failures appeared to be limited and within the evaporative 5 It should be noted that the Dodge Caliber related to the fuel used. Based on this vehicle aged on E15 failed Tier 2 Bin 5 FUL standards on E0. However, this vehicle met Tier 2 immediate exhaust emissions 7 Permeation refers to the migration of fuel Bin 5 FUL standards when tested on E15. The molecules through the walls of elastomers used for Agency could not determine the cause. 6 See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000). fuel system components.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68097

compliance margins for these motor motor vehicle fuel systems. Growth durability-related—will not cause or vehicles. This is consistent with the Energy concluded that E15 would not be contribute to violations of the emissions demonstration of evaporative emissions problematic for current automotive or standards for these motor vehicles. system durability after aging on E10 that fuel dispensing equipment. While MY2000 and older motor vehicles do was required beginning with the Tier 2 directionally illustrative, the materials not have the sophisticated emissions motor vehicle standards, for the purpose compatibility information submitted by control systems of today’s Tier 2 motor of limiting permeation. With respect to Growth Energy does not encompass all vehicles, and there is an engineering durability of the evaporative emissions materials used in motor vehicle fuel basis to believe they may experience control systems, data from several systems, and the test procedures used conditions affecting catalyst durability aspects of the DOE Catalyst Study point are not representative of the dynamic that lead to emission increases if to the expected durability of the real-world conditions under which the operated on E15. This emissions impact, evaporative emissions control system of materials must perform. The over time, combined with the expected Tier 2 motor vehicles on E15. First, information is therefore insufficient by immediate increase in NOX emissions there appears to be no evidence of an itself to adequately assess the potential from the use of E15, provides a clear increase in evaporative emissions material compatibility of E15. However, basis for concern that E15 could cause system onboard diagnostic system codes the information generated through the these motor vehicles to exceed their being triggered by E15 compared to E0. DOE Catalyst Study demonstrates that emissions standards over their useful Second, teardown results of the 12 MY2007 and newer light-duty motor lives. Furthermore, some MY2000 and motor vehicles tested (six models with vehicles will not experience materials older motor vehicles were likely E0 and six models with E15) found no compatibility issues that lead to exhaust designed for no more than limited abnormalities for E15 motor vehicles or evaporative emission exceedances. exposure to ethanol, since gasoline- compared to E0 motor vehicles.8 The DOE Catalyst Study supports the ethanol blends were not used in most Finally, evaporative testing on four of Agency’s engineering assessment that areas of the country at the time they the Tier 2 motor vehicles over the newer motor vehicles such as those were designed. Their fuel systems, course of the test program found no subject to EPA’s Tier 2 standards, were evaporative emissions control systems, increased deterioration in evaporative designed to encounter more regular and internal engine components may emissions with E15 in comparison to ethanol exposure compared to earlier not have been designed and tested for E0.9 Therefore, after taking into account model year motor vehicles. Other long-term durability, materials all of these sources of evaporative regulatory requirements also placed an compatibility, or drivability with fuels emissions data, the evidence supports a emphasis on real world motor vehicle containing ethanol. The limited exhaust conclusion that as long as E15 meets a testing, which in turn prompted emissions durability test data, summertime control season gasoline manufacturers to consider different evaporative emissions durability test volatility level of no higher than 9.0 psi, available fuels when developing and data, and real-world materials E15 is not expected to cause or testing their emissions systems. compatibility test data either provided contribute to exceedances of the Additionally, beginning with Tier 2, the by Growth Energy in their petition or evaporative emission standards over the evaporative durability demonstration available in the public domain do not full useful life of Tier 2 motor vehicles. procedures required the use of E10. As address or resolve these concerns. a result, based on the information before Therefore, the information before the Materials Compatibility us, we do not expect E15 to raise Agency is not adequate to make the Materials compatibility is a key factor emissions related materials demonstration needed to grant a waiver in considering a fuel or fuel additive compatibility issues for Tier 2 motor for the introduction into commerce of waiver insofar as poor materials vehicles. E15 for use in MY2000 and older light- compatibility can lead to serious duty motor vehicles. exhaust and evaporative emission Drivability and Operability compliance problems not only There is no evidence from any of the MY2001–2006 Light-Duty Motor immediately upon use of the new fuel test programs cited by Growth Energy or Vehicles or fuel additive, but especially over the in the data from the DOE Catalyst Study EPA is deferring a decision on full useful life of vehicles and engines. of driveability issues for Tier 2 motor MY2001–2006 light-duty motor As part of its E15 waiver application, vehicles fueled with E15 that would vehicles. DOE is in the process of Growth Energy submitted a series of indicate that use of E15 would lead to conducting additional catalyst studies completed by the State of increased emissions or that might cause durability testing that will provide data Minnesota and the Renewable Fuels motor vehicle owners to want to tamper regarding MY2001–2006 motor vehicles. Association (RFA) that investigated with the emission control system of The DOE testing is scheduled to be materials compatibility of motor vehicle their motor vehicle. The Agency completed by the end of November engines and engine components using reviewed the data and reports from the 2010. EPA will make the DOE test three test fuels: E0, E10, and E20. The different test programs, and found no results available to the public and materials studied included what were specific report of driveability or consider the results and other available considered to be many of the common operability issues across the many data and information in making a metals, elastomers, and plastics used in different motor vehicles and duty determination on the introduction into cycles, including lab testing and in-use commerce of E15 for use in those model 8 Southwest Research Institute Project 08–58845 operation. year motor vehicles. EPA expects to Status Report, ‘‘Powertrain Component Inspection make a determination for these motor from Mid-Level Blends Vehicle Aging Study,’’ MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor vehicles shortly after the results of DOE September 6, 2010. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– Vehicles 14016. testing are available. 9 Environmental Testing Corporation NREL For MY2000 and older motor Subcontract JGC–9–99141–01 Presentation, vehicles, the data and information Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and ‘‘Vehicle Aging and Comparative Emissions testing before EPA fail to adequately Equipment (Nonroad Products) Using E0 and E15 Fuels: Evaporative Emissions Results,’’ August 31, 2010. See EPA–HQ–OAR– demonstrate that the impact of E15 on The nonroad product market is 2009–0211–14015. exhaust emissions—both immediate and extremely diverse. Nonroad products

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68098 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

with gasoline engines include lawn motorcycle emissions and emissions in vehicles and engines not covered by mowers, chainsaws, forklifts, boats, control systems would specifically be the partial waiver for E15. Second, the personal watercraft, and all-terrain affected by the use of E15 over their full proposed rule would require all fuel vehicles. Growth Energy did not provide useful lives. While newer motorcycles dispensers to have a label if a retail information needed to broadly assess incorporate some of the advanced fuel station chooses to sell E15, and it seeks the potential impact of E15 on system and emission control comment on separate labeling compliance of nonroad products with technologies that are found in passenger requirements for blender pumps and applicable emissions standards. cars and light-duty trucks, such as fuel pumps that dispense E85. Finally, Nonroad products typically have more electronic fuel injection and catalysts, the proposed rule would require basic engine designs, fuel systems, and many do not have the specific control product transfer documents (PTDs) controls than light-duty motor vehicles. technology of today’s motor vehicles specifying ethanol content and RVP to The Agency has reasons for concern (advanced fuel trim control) that would accompany the transfer of gasoline with the use of E15 in nonroad allow them to adjust to the higher blended with ethanol as well as a products, particularly with respect to oxygen content of E15. More national survey of retail stations to long-term exhaust and evaporative importantly, older motorcycles do not ensure compliance with the these emissions durability and materials have any of these technologies and are requirements. In addition to proposing compatibility. The limited information therefore more on par with nonroad actions to mitigate misfueling, the provided by Growth Energy and products in some cases and MY2000 proposed rule would modify the commenters, or otherwise available in and older motor vehicles in others. As Reformulated Gasoline (‘‘RFG’’) program the public domain, did not alleviate such, the Agency cannot grant a waiver by updating the Complex Model to these concerns. As such, the Agency for the introduction into commerce of allow fuel manufacturers to certify cannot grant a waiver for introduction E15 for use in highway and off-highway batches of gasoline containing up to 15 into commerce of E15 motor vehicle motorcycles. vol% ethanol. Once adopted, these gasoline that is also for use in nonroad Conditions on Today’s Partial Waiver regulations would facilitate the products. introduction of E15 into commerce There are two types of conditions under this partial waiver, as certain Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and being placed on the partial waiver being Vehicles requirements in the regulations would granted today: Those for mitigating the satisfy certain conditions in the waiver. Given their relatively small volume potential for misfueling of E15 in all If EPA adopts such a rule, EPA would compared to light-duty motor vehicles, vehicles, engines and equipment for consider any appropriate modifications heavy-duty gasoline engines and which E15 is not approved, and those to the conditions of this waiver. vehicles have not been the focus of test addressing fuel and ethanol quality. All programs and efforts to assess the of the conditions are discussed further II. Introduction potential impacts of E15 on them. below and are listed in Section XII. A. Statutory Background Growth Energy did not provide any data EPA believes that the misfueling specifically addressing how heavy-duty mitigation measures in the proposed Section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act gasoline engines’ and vehicles’ rule accompanying today’s waiver (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) makes it unlawful emissions and emissions control decision would provide the most for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel systems would be affected by the use of practical way to ensure that E15 is only additive to first introduce into E15 over the full useful lives of these used in vehicles for which it is commerce, or to increase the vehicles and engines. Additionally, approved. However, if any fuel or fuel concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel from a historical perspective, the additive manufacturer desires to additive for use by any person in motor introduction of heavy-duty gasoline introduce into commerce E15, gasoline vehicles manufactured after model year engine and vehicle technology has intended for use as E15, or ethanol 1974 which is not substantially similar lagged behind the implementation of intended for blending with gasoline to to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in similar technology for light-duty motor create E15, prior to the misfueling the certification of any model year 1975, vehicles. Similarly, emission standards mitigation measures rule becoming final or subsequent model year, vehicle or for this sector have lagged behind those and effective, they may do so provided engine under section 206 of the Act. The of light-duty motor vehicles, such that they implement all of the conditions of Environmental Protection Agency current heavy-duty gasoline engine the partial waiver, including an EPA- (‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) last issued an standards remain comparable, from a approved plan that demonstrates that interpretive rule on the phrase technology standpoint to older light- the fuel or fuel additive manufacturer ‘‘substantially similar’’ at 73 FR 22281 duty motor vehicle standards. will implement the misfueling (April 25, 2008). Generally speaking, Consequently, we believe the concerns mitigation conditions discussed below. this interpretive rule describes the types expressed above regarding MY2000 and of unleaded gasoline that are likely to be Misfueling Mitigation Notice of older motor vehicles are also applicable considered ‘‘substantially similar’’ to the Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to the majority of the in-use fleet of unleaded gasoline utilized in EPA’s heavy-duty gasoline engines and As mentioned above, EPA is certification program by placing limits vehicles. As such, the Agency cannot proposing a regulatory program that on a gasoline’s chemical composition as grant a waiver for the introduction into would help mitigate the potential for well as its physical properties, commerce of E15 for use in heavy-duty misfueling with E15 and promote the including the amount of alcohols and gasoline engines and motor vehicles. successful introduction of E15 into ethers (oxygenates) that may be added to commerce. The proposal includes gasoline. Fuels that are found to be Highway and Off-Highway Motorcycles several provisions that parallel the ‘‘substantially similar’’ to EPA’s Like heavy-duty gasoline engines and misfueling mitigation conditions on the certification fuels may be registered and vehicles, highway and off-highway E15 waiver. First, the proposed rule introduced into commerce. The current motorcycles have not been the focus of would prohibit the use of gasoline- ‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule E15 test programs. Growth Energy did ethanol blended fuels containing greater for unleaded gasoline allows oxygen not provide any data addressing how than 10 vol% and up to 15 vol% ethanol content up to 2.7% by weight for certain

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68099

ethers and alcohols.10 E10 (a gasoline- B. Growth Energy Application and vehicles’ emissions control systems, a ethanol blend containing 10 vol% Review Process key technical issue to be addressed in ethanol) contains approximately 3.5% On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy and EPA’s waiver review. This kind of oxygen by weight and received a waiver 54 ethanol manufacturers (hereafter testing requires thousands of miles of of this prohibition by operation of law ‘‘Growth Energy’’) submitted an mileage accumulation (or its equivalent 11 under section 211(f)(4). E15 (gasoline- application to the U.S. Environmental using a test cell), and the collection of ethanol blended fuels containing greater Protection Agency (EPA) for a waiver of such data requires a significant amount than 10 vol% ethanol and up to 15 vol% the substantially similar prohibition. of time to complete. ethanol) has greater than 2.7 wt% This application seeks a waiver for Coordinating with EPA and oxygen content, and Growth Energy has gasoline containing up to 15 vol% stakeholders, DOE expedited the applied for a waiver under section ethanol. On April 21, 2009, EPA durability testing, first focusing on 211(f)(4) of the Act. published notice of the receipt of the newer motor vehicles. Realizing that it Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides application, and EPA requested public would take a significant amount of time that upon application of any fuel or fuel comment on all aspects of the waiver (months) to finish collecting and additive manufacturer, the application for assisting the evaluating the durability data, EPA Administrator may waive the Administrator in determining whether notified Growth Energy in a letter on prohibitions of section 211(f)(1) if the the statutory basis for granting the November 30, 2009, that it was not Administrator determines that the waiver request for E15 has been met.13 issuing a decision on the waiver at that applicant has established that such fuel EPA originally provided a 30-day period time but instead planned to issue a or fuel additive, or a specified for the public to respond. The deadline decision at a later date based on the concentration thereof, will not cause or for public comment was May 21, 2009. need to assess the critical data being contribute to a failure of any emission After multiple requests for additional generated by the DOE catalyst durability control device or system (over the useful time to comment, EPA agreed that test program. life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle additional time for comments was The DOE Catalyst Study is engine, nonroad engine or nonroad appropriate and that an extension of the comprehensive. A total of 82 vehicles vehicle in which such device or system comment period would aid in providing are expected to undergo full useful life is used) to achieve compliance by the these stakeholders and others an testing. Motor vehicles are accumulating vehicle or engine with the emission adequate amount of time to respond to mileage under an accelerated protocol, standards to which it has been certified the complex legal and technical issues which generally results in each motor pursuant to sections 206 and 213(a). In that result from possibly allowing E15 to vehicle being tested over 6–9 months. other words, the Administrator may be sold commercially. Accordingly, on DOE has completed the first phase of grant a waiver for a prohibited fuel or May 20, 2009, EPA published a Federal this testing which focused on light-duty fuel additive if the applicant can Register notice extending the public motor vehicles certified to Federal Tier demonstrate that the new fuel or fuel comment period for the E15 waiver 2 emissions standards. The analysis and additive will not cause or contribute to application until July 20, 2009.14 For evaluation of not only this durability engines, vehicles or equipment to fail to EPA’s response to more recent requests data, but all of the data relevant to the meet their emissions standards over for an additional comment period, see Growth Energy application, as well as their useful lives. The statute requires section IX. EPA’s partial waiver decision, is that the Administrator shall take final The Agency received approximately discussed and explained below. DOE action to grant or deny the application, 78,000 comments on the waiver should complete testing on vehicles after public notice and comment, within application. The overwhelming majority certified to National Low Emission 270 days of receipt of the application. of these comments were brief comments Vehicle (NLEV) and Tier 1 Federal The current section 211(f)(4) reflects from individuals indicating either emission standards by the end of the following changes made by the general support for or opposition to the November. Energy Independence and Security Act E15 waiver application. The Agency Various parties have also suggested of 2007: (1) Requires consideration of also received a large number of allowances for the use of E12 (gasoline- the impact on nonroad engines and comments from a variety of ethanol blended fuel that contains 12 nonroad vehicles in a waiver decision; organizations which substantively vol% ethanol) for all gasoline-powered (2) extends the period allowed for addressed the questions which EPA vehicles and engines. The issue of E12 consideration of the waiver request posed in the Federal Register notice is also discussed separately below in application from 180 days to 270 days; announcing receipt of the application. Section VIII. and, (3) deletes a provision that resulted These comments are summarized and C. Today’s Notice of Proposed in a waiver request becoming effective addressed below. Rulemaking (NPRM) on Misfueling by operation of law if the Administrator In addition to the information Mitigation Measures made no decision on the application submitted by Growth Energy and within 180 days of receipt of the commenters, the Department of Energy As noted above, today’s partial waiver application.12 (DOE) has been performing, and decision places several conditions on continues to perform, testing on a fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to 10 See 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991). variety of motor vehicles focused on the mitigate the use of E15 in nonroad 11 As explained at 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979), effect E15 might have on motor vehicles products, highway and off-highway EPA did not grant or deny a waiver request for a after long-term use of E15 (‘‘DOE motorcycles, heavy-duty gasoline fuel containing 90% unleaded gasoline and 10% engines and vehicles, and motor ethyl alcohol within 180 days of receiving that Catalyst Study’’). This testing is a request. By operation of a provision that was at that significant source of information on the vehicles older than MY2007. In a separate notice, we are today time included in section 211(f)(4), E10 was no effects of E15 on the durability of motor longer subject to the prohibitions in CAA section proposing regulatory provisions that 211(f)(1) of the Act. That provision has parallel many of the conditions placed subsequently been removed. requirements of the Renewable Fuels Standard 12 As noted previously, the Energy Independence Program. on the E15 partial waiver. Specifically, and Security Act of 2007 also substantially 13 See 74 FR 18228 (April 21, 2009). we are proposing a prohibition on the increased the mandated renewable fuel 14 See 74 FR 23704 (May 20, 2009). use of gasoline containing greater than

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68100 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

10 vol% ethanol in MY2000 and older of a negative proposition: That no or fuel additive on the applicable non-flex fueled light-duty motor vehicle or engine will fail to meet engines and vehicles. vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines emission standards to which it has been In conducting a waiver application and vehicles, highway and off-highway certified. Such a literal interpretation review, EPA’s emissions impact analysis motorcycles, and all nonroad products, could be construed as requiring the concentrates on the following four major based on findings under both sections testing of every vehicle or engine that areas: 19 (1) Exhaust emissions, both 211(c)(1)(A) and (B) of the CAA. The will use the waived fuel. Recognizing immediate and long-term (durability); prohibition is necessary based on the that Congress contemplated a workable (2) evaporative emissions, both potential for increased emissions waiver provision, EPA has previously immediate and long-term; (3) materials resulting from the use of E15. In order indicated that reliable statistical compatibility; and (4) driveability and to facilitate the entry of E15 into sampling and fleet testing protocols operability. EPA evaluates the emissions commerce for use in MY2007 and newer could safely be used to demonstrate that impacts in these four categories motor vehicles, while protecting a fuel or fuel additive under individually and collectively and makes vehicles and engines not approved for consideration would not cause or its final determination based on whether use of E15, this rulemaking proposes contribute to motor vehicles in the the new fuel or fuel additive will cause fuel pump labeling provisions to applicable national fleet failing to meet or contribute to the failure of vehicles mitigate the misfueling of motor their applicable emissions standards.16 and engines to meet their emissions vehicles and other engines, vehicles and While this demonstration typically standards. Each category is further equipment prohibited from using a takes the form of reliable statistical discussed below. motor vehicle gasoline containing sampling and fleet testing protocols, an Exhaust and evaporative emission ethanol in levels higher than E10. We applicant may also make a data are analyzed according to the are also proposing additional demonstration based upon a reasonable effects that a fuel or fuel additive is requirements for fuels that contain theory regarding emissions effects and predicted to have on emissions over greater than 10 vol% ethanol and no support these judgments with time. If the fuel is predicted to have more than 15 vol% ethanol, including confirmatory testing as an alternative to only an immediate effect on emissions the proper documentation of ethanol providing the amount of data necessary (i.e., the emission effects of the fuel or content on product transfer documents to conduct robust statistical analyses.17 fuel additive are immediate and remain and requirements for a national survey If a reasonable theory exists, based on constant throughout the life of the to ensure the proper placement of E15 good engineering judgment, which vehicle or engine when operating on the ‘‘ ’’ labels and the proper placement of predicts the emission effects of a fuel or waiver fuel), then back-to-back gasoline-ethanol blends in the fuel additive, an applicant may only emissions testing will suffice. However, appropriate gasoline storage tanks; these need to conduct a sufficient amount of if the fuel or fuel additive affects the operation of the engine or related provisions should help support the testing to demonstrate the validity of emission control hardware in a physical effectiveness of a labeling program. such a theory. This theory and confirmatory testing then form the basis manner (e.g., operating temperatures, III. Method of Review from which the Administrator may component interaction, chemical Under section 211(f)(4) of the Act, 24 exercise his or her judgment on whether changes, increased permeation, and applications for waivers of the section the fuel or fuel additive will cause or materials degradation) that might lead to 211(f)(1) prohibitions have been contribute to a failure of the vehicles emissions deterioration over time, test received over the past 30 years. Of and engines to achieve compliance with data is needed to demonstrate that the these, 23 applications have sought a their emission standards.18 Thus, the long-term durability of the emissions waiver for additives for unleaded burden of proof calls for sufficient data control system is not compromised by gasoline. One application sought a to conduct statistical analyses or to the fuel or fuel additive such that it waiver of the section 211(f)(1)(B) confirm a reasonable theory based on would cause or contribute to the engines prohibitions for an additive to diesel sound engineering judgment. or vehicles failing to meet their fuel. Of these 24 applications, 11 In determining whether a waiver emissions standards. Materials compatibility issues can applications were granted (some with applicant has established that the lead to substantial exhaust and conditions attached), 10 were denied, proposed fuel or fuel additive will not evaporative emissions increases. In most and three were withdrawn by the cause or contribute to vehicles and cases, materials incompatibility issues applicant prior to the Agency’s engines failing to meet their emission show up in emissions testing; however, decision.15 standards, EPA reviews all of the there may be impacts that do not show Section 211(f)(4) clearly places upon material in the public docket. At a up due to the way the testing is the waiver applicant the burden of minimum, the docket includes data performed or because the tests simply establishing that its fuel or fuel additive submitted with the application and the do not capture the effect, especially if will not cause or contribute to the public comments and data received materials compatibility effects are failure of vehicles or engines to meet during the public review and comment determined to result with use of the new their assigned emission standards over period on the application. EPA may also fuel or fuel additive over time. EPA has their useful lives. Absent a sufficient examine applicable data from any other required applicants to demonstrate that showing, the Administrator cannot sources which may shed light on the new fuel or fuel additives will not have make the required determination and relevant analyses; such other data is also materials compatibility issues.20 cannot grant the waiver. If interpreted placed in the docket. EPA then A change in the driveability of a literally, however, this burden of proof considers and analyzes all of the data to motor vehicle that results in significant would be virtually impossible for an ascertain the emission effects of the fuel deviation from normal operation (i.e., applicant to meet as it requires the proof stalling, hesitation, etc.) could result in 16 See 43 FR 41425 (September 18, 1978). increased emissions. These increases 15 ‘‘Waiver Requests under Section 211(f) of the 17 See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979). Clean Air Act (Revised August 22, 1995),’’ found at 18 See Waiver Decision on Application of E.I. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/ DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), 46 FR 19 See 44 FR 12244 (February 23, 1979). waiver.pdf. 6124 (February 28, 1983). 20 See 44 FR 1447 (January 5, 1979).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68101

may not be demonstrated in the impact of long-term use of E15 on the information to satisfy long-term exhaust emission certification test cycles but emissions control system is not required emissions testing requirements. In its instead are present during in-use for E15 because EPA has waived comments, Growth Energy supplied an operation. In addition to consumer durability testing for oxygenates in the updated summary of the RIT Study dissatisfaction, a motor vehicle stall and past. Growth Energy contends that EPA which details RIT’s expansion of the subsequent restart can result in a has determined that oxygenates such as driveability program to 400 motor significant emissions increase because ethanol do not require durability testing vehicles. Growth Energy argues that the hydrocarbon (HC) and CO emission because the Agency is ‘‘unaware of any updated summary of the RIT Study that rates are typically highest during cold long-term deteriorative effects on they submitted in their comments has starts. Further, concerns exist if the exhaust emissions associated with shown ‘‘no significant issues’’ with over consumer or operator tampers with the oxygenates’’ 21 and that ‘‘the vast 400 motor vehicles that have motor vehicle in an attempt to correct majority of data indicate that the effect accumulated over 1.5 million total the driveability issue since consumers of oxygenates on exhaust emissions over combined miles and found that may attempt to modify a motor vehicle time has not been a significant issue.’’ 22 ‘‘emissions may be reduced through use from its original certified configuration. Growth Energy argued further that it of E–20.’’ 25 Growth Energy contends would be ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ for that this study confirms their theory that IV. Waiver Submissions and Analysis the Agency to require durability testing E15 will not cause or contribute to of Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Issues for E15 considering EPA’s long-standing motor vehicles failing their emissions This section discusses Growth position that oxygenates like ethanol standards over their full useful lives. Energy’s waiver submission, comments will not have long-term exhaust b. Public Comment Summary received on it, and EPA’s waiver emissions effects. decision and analysis for light-duty Growth Energy’s second argument is Several commenters responded that motor vehicles. The discussion groups that EPA may accept reasonable the RIT Study has limitations and does vehicles according to our decision: theoretical judgments regarding the not alleviate concerns about the long- MY2007 and newer light-duty motor emission effects of a fuel as an term emissions impacts of using E15 in vehicles for which we are approving the alternative to direct testing of motor motor vehicles. The Manufacturers of waiver, MY2001–2006 for which we are vehicles, and that in this case, fuel Emissions Controls Association (MECA) deferring a decision, and MY2000 and volatility specification, limited argues that emission control-related older motor vehicles for which we are durability emissions testing, and data concerns regarding the use of E15 denying the waiver. regarding materials compatibility and include the potential for accelerated As described in Section III, Method of driveability could be used to establish thermal deactivation of three-way Review, above, the Agency evaluated and confirm such a theory. Growth catalysts equipped on existing light- Growth Energy’s waiver request and Energy suggests that the collection of duty motor vehicles or nonroad engines, made its decision based on four factors: studies supplied in the application, due to higher exhaust temperatures that (1) Exhaust emissions impact—both coupled with 30 years of experience have been observed on engines fueled immediate and long-term (known as using E10, provides a rational basis to with mid-level ethanol blends in durability); (2) immediate exhaust develop a theory that E15 will not cause comparison to E0 and E10. MECA emissions impact; (2) evaporative or contribute to emissions failures in argues further that the thermal system impacts—both immediate and motor vehicles. Growth Energy feels that durability of three-way catalyst long-term; (3) the impact of materials the studies supplied in the application formulations is a function of time, compatibility on emissions; and, (4) the supply enough data to confirm their catalyst temperature, and gas impact of drivability and operability on theory and this alleviates the need for composition; extended catalyst emissions. long-term emissions testing. exposure to higher exhaust A. MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor In particular, Growth Energy suggests temperatures, especially in the presence Vehicles that since a study conducted by the of oxygen-rich exhaust conditions that Rochester Institute of Technology can be created through the use of E15, While this section discusses the (RIT) 23 examined the effects of E20 can accelerate catalyst thermal rationale of our decision for MY2007 (gasoline-ethanol blend containing 20 deactivation mechanisms (e.g., sintering and newer light-duty motor vehicles, it vol% ethanol) on 10 vehicles over of active precious metal sites, sintering references information related to other significant mileage accumulation of oxygen storage materials, and model years as Growth Energy’s (75,000 miles combined), and found no migration of active materials into inert submission was not model year specific issues when comparing E20 emissions support materials).26 and neither were the comments. In performance with E0 (gasoline Many commenters point out that addition, we believe it was important to containing no ethanol) emissions Growth Energy submitted and cited only discuss MY2007 and newer motor performance, that ‘‘E20 will not have a a summary of the RIT Study. The vehicles in the context of how they are significant deteriorative effect on summary, as these commenters note, different from earlier model year light- applicable vehicle parts.’’ 24 Growth omits key details necessary to evaluate duty motor vehicles. Energy believes that this is enough the conclusions that Growth Energy 1. Exhaust Emissions—Long-Term draws from the RIT Study. For example, Durability 21 See 53 FR 33846 (September 1, 1988). 22 See 44 FR 10530 (February 21, 1979). 25 ‘‘Growth Energy’s Comments on Notice of Clean a. Growth Energy’s Submission 23 The effect of E20 ethanol fuel on vehicle Air Act Waiver Application To Increase the emissions, B Hilton and B Daddy, Center for Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to Fifteen For long-term durability testing Integrated Manufacturing Studies, Rochester Percent,’’ EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– (‘‘durability testing’’), Growth Energy Institute of Technology, June 26, 2009. See EPA– 2721.1. suggests that durability testing is not HQ–OAR–2009–0211. (‘‘The RIT Study’’). 26 ‘‘Statement of the Manufacturers of Emission required for E15 for two reasons. First, 24 ‘‘Application For A Waiver Pursuant to Section Controls Association on the Waiver Request in its waiver application and public 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act For E–15’’ Submitted Received by the U.S. Environmental Protection by Growth Energy on Behalf of 52 United States Agency to Increase the Ethanol Content of Gasoline comments, Growth Energy argued that Ethanol Manufacturers; EPA Docket #EPA–HQ– up to 15%,’’ EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– emissions testing to determine the OAR–2009–0211–0002.6. 0211–2441.1.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68102 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

commenters noted that the summary did Commenters also pointed out that the E15 in motor vehicles could cause a not specify the make, model and year of CRC Screening Study showed increased substantial number of motor vehicles to the motor vehicles tested, making it exhaust temperatures in motor vehicles fail emissions standards because of impossible to determine the that failed to apply long-term learned increased catalyst deterioration over the representativeness of RIT’s motor fuel trim when operating open loop at motor vehicles’ full useful life, vehicle test fleet. Additionally, they wide open throttle using E15 and E20. especially in so-called ‘‘legacy vehicles’’ added that no actual data were included This constituted seven of the sixteen which constitute a bulk of the American in the summary for commenters and the vehicles tested, and the average increase motor vehicle fleet. The Alliance asserts Agency to conduct independent was 30 degrees Celsius in these motor that this uncertainty of the long-term analyses of RIT’s test results. vehicles. effects of E15 on catalysts durability Furthermore, no detailed descriptions Several comments refer to a series of would require motor vehicle testing outlining the fuel properties of both test studies conducted by Orbital Engine over the full useful life to address these fuels (E0 and E20) were included in the Company for Environment Australia to concerns. The Alliance for a Safe summary. Even through Growth Energy evaluate impacts E20 would have if Alternative Fuels Environment provided an updated summary of the introduced in Australia (‘‘the Orbital (‘‘AllSAFE’’) concluded that legally RIT Study in its comments, this updated Study’’). The Orbital Study evaluated ‘‘when the relevant effects can include summary still omitted important details emissions performance on total accelerated catalyst deterioration, ’back necessary for commenters and the hydrocarbon, CO, NOx and aldehydes, to back’ testing to determine so-called Agency to conduct an independent materials compatibility issues, and ’immediate’ emissions impacts is not analysis. driveability of E20 compared to E0 with sufficient.’’ 31 Growth Energy submitted two Auto manufacturers, refiners, and a test fleet of five paired late model responses to the Orbital Study. First, several others similarly noted that Australian motor vehicles. The Orbital Growth Energy commented that the higher exhaust temperatures could Study completed emissions testing over motor vehicles tested in the Orbital cause increased deterioration of 80,000 kilometers (about 50,000 miles). Study were designed for Australian catalysts over time. These commenters The study notes that there were emission standards and are not assert that this deterioration may substantial increases in regulated representative of motor vehicles found adversely affect a motor vehicle’s ability pollutants for motor vehicles that used in the US. Second, since much of the to meet emissions standards, E20 when compared with vehicles that used E0 after the accumulation of research Orbital relied on was particularly after significant mileage conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, 80,000 kilometers. The study’s authors accumulation. Growth Energy points out that the ‘‘U.S. further point out that one motor vehicle Commenters noted that a recently fleet has been redesigned significantly operating on E20 exceeded the released Coordinating Research Council since the mid-1980s to accommodate Australian NO emissions standard.29 (CRC) Report E–87–1 (‘‘the CRC X different fuel blends and meet the The Orbital authors also examined Screening Study’’ or ‘‘E–87–1’’) is the world’s most stringent emission catalyst efficiency changes as a possible first phase of another test program regulations.’’ 32 developed to look at the effects of mid- cause of the changes in emissions as a Specifically addressing the issue of level gasoline-ethanol blends on U.S. result of aging the motor vehicles on higher catalyst temperatures, Growth motor vehicles.27 The purpose of the E20. The Orbital authors conclude that Energy, ACE, and others responded in study was to identify motor vehicles the exhaust emissions increases their respective comments that higher which used learned fuel trims to correct occurred due to catalyst degradation catalyst temperatures are not necessarily open-loop air-to-fuel (A/F) ratios since which they attribute to the increase in harmful to the catalysts.33 They point this may gauge the risk of the catalyst exhaust temperature from E20 use out that the catalyst temperature to thermal degradation.28 This study is during particular modes of operation. increases in the DOE Pilot Study were the first phase of a two-phase study They continue by noting that the two relatively small and well within normal evaluating the effects of mid-level motor vehicles that experienced operating temperatures. These gasoline-ethanol blends on emission dramatic emissions increases with E20 commenters also note that the control systems. The test program after aging were motor vehicle models temperatures only occurred in certain identified and acquired a fleet of 25 test that failed to adjust to the higher oxygen motor vehicles and only when those motor vehicles with 12 of those motor levels found in E20. motor vehicles were operated in the vehicles manufactured after 2000. The The Alliance of Automobile rarely used wide open throttle mode. study collected vehicle speed, oxygen Manufacturers (‘‘the Alliance’’) reasons Growth Energy points out that for the sensor A/F ratio, and catalyst that the Orbital Study, the CRC seven motor vehicles that adjusted for temperature data on four fuels (E0, E10, Screening Study, and the DOE Pilot E15, and E20). Results compared the Study 30 suggest that allowing the use of 2009, as the ‘‘DOE Pilot Study’’. EPA Docket #EPA– three gasoline-ethanol blends with E0. HQ–OAR–2005–0161–2880. 31 The study concluded that a large 29 After reviewing the emissions results presented ‘‘Exhibit B, Supplemental Statutory Appendix in the Orbital Study, we believe that these motor To the Comments of the Alliance for a Safe number of vehicles (12 of the 25 tested) vehicles’ certified emissions standards are Alternative Fuels Environment On the Request for failed to apply long-term fuel trim to comparable to the Tier 1 (1994 to 1999) motor Waiver of the Prohibition in Section 211(f)(1) of the correct for increasing ethanol levels vehicle exhaust emissions standards in the United Clean Air Act when operating in open-loop control. States. Noticed for Comment at 74 FR 18,228 (April 21, 30 In October 2008, DOE released a report titled 2009)’’, submitted by AllSAFE, EPA Docket #EPA– Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy HQ–OAR–2009–0211–2559.2. 27 Mid-level Ethanol Blends Catalyst Durability Vehicles and Small Non-road Engines, Report 1. 32 ‘‘ATTACHMENT A: Responses to Anecdotes Study Screening (CRC Report: E–87–1), June 2009 DOE later published an update to that report, which and Unfounded Claims Regarding E–15,’’ submitted (‘‘CRC Screening Study’’), EPA Docket # EPA–HQ– included all of the original study plus additional by Growth Energy, EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– OAR–2009–0211–13970. Available at: http:// vehicles. For the purposes of this decision 2009–0211–2721.2. www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2009/E-87-1/ document, we refer to the updated study, Effects of 33 In fact, ACE argues that these increased catalyst E-87-1%20Final%20Report%2007_06_2009.pdf. Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles temperatures may be responsible for the average 28 See section IV.A.1.c. for a detailed discussion and Small Non-road Engines, Report 1—Updated, decreases in NOX emissions found in the DOE of these terms. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, February Study and RIT Study. See ACE’s Comment, 8.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68103

the extra oxygen from the increased vehicles’ ability to meet the required in previous waiver decisions. The ethanol blends, catalyst temperatures emission standards over their FUL. Agency believes that Growth Energy’s were cooler on average. Extended catalyst exposure to higher waiver request application is different exhaust temperatures can accelerate c. EPA Response Regarding the Need for in substantial ways from previous catalyst thermal deactivation oxygenate waiver applications that EPA Long-Term Exhaust Emissions mechanisms (e.g., sintering of active (Durability) Testing has reviewed. Previous oxygenate precious metal sites, sintering of oxygen waivers have, at most, resulted in i. General Long-Term Exhaust Emissions storage materials, and migration of increased fuel oxygen levels of up to (Durability) Concerns active materials into inert support around 2.7% by weight oxygen. E15, for materials). While this damage can occur Ethanol impacts motor vehicles in the first time, would add significantly at a highly accelerated rate with a two primary ways. First, as discussed more oxygen to the fuel, up to around sudden change in temperature (e.g., below, ethanol enleans the A/F ratio 5.5% by weight oxygen depending on (increases the proportion of oxygen with a misfire allowing raw fuel to reach the catalyst), it is more likely to occur the density of the gasoline to which relative to hydrocarbons) which can ethanol is added. This increase in lead to increased exhaust gas over time from elevated exhaust temperatures as may be experienced oxygen content is double the current temperatures and potentially increase oxygen content limit that EPA interprets incremental deterioration of emission with frequent or even occasional exposure to E15. This deterioration may to be substantially similar to motor control hardware and performance over vehicle gasoline used in the certification time, possibly causing catalyst failure. adversely affect a motor vehicle’s ability of motor vehicles.34 Additionally, with Second, ethanol can cause materials to meet emissions standards, particularly after significant mileage the exception of the original E10 waiver, compatibility issues, which may lead to accumulation. other component failures (this will be which was not granted through an EPA Some motor vehicles may be designed discussed further in sections IV.A.3 and decision but through the operation of in ways that manage catalyst law,35 and the Tertiary-butyl Alcohol IV.A.4 below). Ultimately, either of temperatures by compensating for the these impacts may lead to emission waiver, which leads to oxygen content oxygen in the fuel under all operating of about 1.6 percent, EPA has placed a increases. conditions, including high loads. This is Due to the increased oxygen content condition on all other gasoline-alcohol achieved by using a closed-loop fuel of E15 relative to E10, motor vehicles waivers requiring a corrosion inhibitor system that measures the A/F ratio and to deal with the aggressive nature of operated on E15 will likely run even makes the appropriate corrections to these fuels. leaner than those operated on E10 maintain the A/F ratio in the very tight depending on the vehicle technology band of operation around stoichiometry In addition to this very large increase and operating conditions. It is also necessary for optimum catalyst in oxygen content compared to the relevant to note that all motor vehicles performance and reductions in HC, CO, waivers granted by EPA over 20 years are emissions and durability tested for and NOX emissions. The corrections can ago, the emissions standards that motor exhaust emissions certification purposes be applied to other areas of operation to vehicles must achieve have become using an E0 fuel; therefore, this effect of achieve the desired A/F ratio. The part much more stringent over time. As a changing from E10 to E15 will not be of the closed-loop fuel system that is result, emissions control systems have present during certification and responsible for the correction to the also changed significantly over time. compliance testing. Enleaned A/F ratio is referred to as ‘‘fuel trim.’’ The emissions controls systems of combustion leads to an increase in the The fuel trim adds or removes fuel to temperature of the exhaust gases. This vehicles over the last 20 years have the engine in order to maintain the progressively become more dependent increase in exhaust gas temperatures has required A/F ratio. If the measured A/ the potential to raise the temperatures of on the ability to control the F ratio has insufficient oxygen or is deterioration of the emissions control various exhaust system components ‘‘rich,’’ compared to what the engine system, especially the catalyst, to (e.g., exhaust valves, exhaust manifolds, needs, the fuel trim will instruct the fuel achieve compliance with the emissions catalysts, and oxygen sensors) beyond injectors to inject less fuel, making the their design limits. However, based on A/F ratio ‘‘leaner.’’ The opposite is true standards over the full useful life of the past experience, the most sensitive if the measured A/F ratio has too much motor vehicle. Of particular importance component is likely the catalyst, oxygen and needs to inject more fuel for is the ability of emissions control particularly in older motor vehicles a ‘‘richer’’ A/F ratio. The fuel trim is systems over time to limit or control with early catalyst technology. Catalyst generally comprised of two major parts, long-term deterioration by accounting durability is highly dependent on short-term fuel trim and long-term or for the oxygen level of the fuel. The temperature, time, and feed gas learned or adaptive fuel trim. Learned or oxygen content levels at issue in this composition. Catalyst temperatures adaptive fuel trim can also be applied to waiver application raise serious must be controlled and catalyst open-loop operation such as high-load concerns about long-term durability. deterioration minimized during all or wide-open throttle to alleviate the This concern is supported by motor vehicle operation modes for the catalyst temperature increases caused by information in several studies. catalyst to maintain high conversion operating on E15. However this practice efficiency over the motor vehicle’s full For both of these reasons, EPA rejects has not been consistently employed by Growth Energy’s claim that long-term useful life (FUL). This is particularly all manufacturers. important during high-load operation of exhaust emissions (durability) testing is a motor vehicle where the highest ii. Response to Growth Energy’s First not required for the E15 waiver request exhaust gas temperatures are typically Argument and that it would be arbitrary or encountered and the risk for catalyst In its first argument Growth Energy capricious for EPA to require durability deterioration is the greatest. Catalysts asserted that long-term exhaust testing for this waiver. that exceed temperature thresholds will emissions testing (‘‘durability testing’’) is deteriorate at rates higher than not required for E15 because EPA has 34 See 73 FR 22277 (April 25, 2008). expected, compromising the motor waived durability testing for oxygenates 35 See 44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68104 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

iii. Response to Growth Energy’s Second For example, the RIT Study that Growth Energy did not provide any data Argument Growth Energy cites does not support or analysis of warranty or repair the conclusions that Growth Energy information from in-use experience with Growth Energy in its second argument draws from this test program. E10 vs. E0 with which to assess what concluded that E15 does not require Specifically, Growth Energy argues that the impact has been over the last 30 long-term exhaust emissions (durability) because the RIT Study had run 10 motor years from the use of E10 in the in-use test data, because, as they state, EPA vehicles over 75,000 miles without any fleet, nor any information showing how may accept reasonable theoretical serious issues, a reasonable theory the results of such an analysis would judgments as to the emission effects of concerning E15’s effects on long-term change with the use of E15. Therefore, a fuel as an alternative to the direct durability may be inferred. However, 10 we do not agree with Growth Energy testing of motor vehicles. However, motor vehicles run over 75,000 miles on that durability testing is not required. Growth Energy has not presented a E20 is only an average of 7,500 miles The Agency concludes that the reasonable and valid engineering theory per motor vehicle. This is substantially studies and other information cited in to demonstrate that E15 will not lower than the 100,000/120,000 full Growth Energy’s waiver request detrimentally impact the durability of useful life of the motor vehicles in the application, and its public comments, emissions control systems such that test program. Similarly, Growth Energy do not demonstrate that E15 is not likely engines and vehicles can still meet their argues that the expanded RIT Study ran to have adverse impacts on the long- emissions standards while using E15. 400 motor vehicles over 1.5 million term exhaust emissions (durability) of They point to fuel volatility combined miles without significant the emissions control system over the specification, limited durability issues. However, 400 motor vehicles run full useful life of motor vehicles. The emissions testing, data regarding over 1.5 million miles is an average of DOE Pilot Study, the CRC Screening materials compatibility and driveability, 3,750 miles per motor vehicle. Study, the Orbital Study, comments as well as the collection of studies Additionally, Growth Energy suggests from the automobile manufacturers, and supplied in the application, coupled that RIT found decreases in the our engineering judgment, as discussed with 30 years of experience with using emissions of regulated pollutants in below, all indicate that legitimate E10, as providing a rational basis for a RIT’s 400-vehicle driveability study, but concerns exist that E15 could accelerate theory that E15 would not cause long- no actual emissions testing on those the deterioration of the catalysts in a term deterioration of the emissions motor vehicles was performed. In the sizeable portion of the national fleet, control systems of motor vehicles. updated RIT summary that Growth leading to increased emissions. However, this is not an engineering Energy submitted during the comment Therefore, EPA finds that the limited theory or an engineering analysis. period, RIT had not conducted any durability testing and other information Growth Energy has not analyzed the additional motor vehicle emissions relied upon by Growth Energy is not design of emissions control systems and testing since the earlier summary. adequate by itself to determine the long- their changes over time, as emissions Although the initial emissions testing term durability impact of E15 on standards have increasingly become conducted in 2008 may suggest exhaust emissions control systems. more stringent. Nor has Growth Energy decreases in regulated pollutants, it d. Durability Studies and EPA Analysis does not address concerns that explained from an engineering A number of regulatory actions have perspective why in theory the oxygen increased ethanol levels in gasoline may lead to increased exhaust temperatures, taken place since 2000 which have levels found in E15 should not lead to placed an emphasis on real-world durability problems for the emissions increased catalyst deterioration, and increased emissions over time. Since the testing of motor vehicles, which in turn control system when used over time. has led to changes in emission control Instead, Growth Energy points to the RIT study only performed emissions testing on 10 of the vehicles (4 of which systems. First, the Compliance same information as both the source of Assurance Program, more commonly its theory as well as the data used to were Ford F250 trucks), and the mileage accumulated on E20 for each vehicle known as CAP2000, took effect with confirm its theory. This highlights the MY2001 motor vehicles and was circular nature of Growth Energy’s was far less than the 120,000 mile FUL, it is not possible to draw adequate designed to place more emphasis on the argument, as well as the absence of an ‘‘in-use’’ performance (or the engineering analysis that identifies and conclusions concerning long-term emissions from the RIT Study even after performance of motor vehicles once explains any theory Growth Energy they are in customer service) of motor relies upon. the completion of the test program. The Agency finds that none of the vehicle emission controls with motor Absent such a theory, one would other studies or information cited by vehicles operating nationwide on the perform the durability testing and draw Growth Energy specifically addresses different available fuels. The In-Use conclusions from such testing about the the concern with the effect of increased Verification Program (IUVP) introduced impact of E15 on long-term durability. exhaust temperatures due to increased under CAP2000 requires manufacturers In essence, Growth Energy is suggesting ethanol levels and how that will impact to perform exhaust and evaporative that the data and testing it presents the motor vehicles’ ability to meet their emissions tests on customer motor provides such an evidentiary basis and emissions standards over their useful vehicles at low and high mileage is as credible as data gathered from life. The studies and material may intervals. This emphasis on real-world actual long-term durability testing for provide information relative to other motor vehicle testing provided drawing such conclusions. Instead of aspects of ethanol impacts but fall short manufacturers with increased incentive presenting a reasoned engineering of providing any substantive to consider the impacts of different theory and data to confirm it, they are information on the long-term effects of marketplace fuels, including E10, when presenting what amounts to an midlevel gasoline-ethanol blends on developing and testing their emissions alternative evidentiary basis to long- emissions control systems. Nor do any control systems. term durability testing. However, the of the studies that Growth Energy cites Second, by MY2004, Supplemental information that Growth Energy relies provide sufficient information to lead Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) on is not adequate to provide such a the Agency to believe that there will not emissions standards were fully phased basis. be long-term durability concerns. in. SFTP emissions standards expanded

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68105

vehicle emission testing to better minimize deterioration of the emissions apply learned fuel trim may still have represent actual consumer driving control system over a motor vehicle’s sufficient thermal margins. habits and conditions by including the FUL of 120,000 miles (40 CFR 86.1811– To evaluate the actual impacts of E15 US06 test (a high speed and high 04). In particular, catalyst deterioration on Tier 2 motor vehicles, DOE acceleration cycle), the SCO3 test (an air must be minimized and catalyst performed a catalyst durability test conditioning test cycle run in an temperatures controlled during all program,36 the DOE Catalyst Study, environmental test chamber at 95 °F), motor vehicle operation modes for the throughout 2009 and 2010 on 19 Tier 2 and a 20 °F cold test run on the Federal catalyst to work properly (i.e., for it to motor vehicle models from high sales Test Procedure (FTP) cycle. In response maintain the necessary high efficiency volume models of the various light-duty to these requirements manufacturers demanded by the Tier 2 standards). To motor vehicle manufacturers. The developed more robust emissions do so, some manufacturers incorporated specific purpose of the program was to control systems (such as systems using learned or adaptive fuel trim into their evaluate the long term effects of E0, E10, wide range oxygen sensors) capable of motor vehicle designs to help control E15, and E20 on catalyst system withstanding the higher temperatures the A/F ratio and alleviate catalyst durability. The program also provided experienced during these more severe temperature increases even under open- other limited but valuable information cycles without simply relying on loop conditions. Others, through careful relevant to today’s partial waiver enriching of the A/F ratio, causing hardware selection and certain decision, such as materials emissions to rise. compatibility, evaporative control Third, beginning with MY2004, the calibration approaches, designed their motor vehicles with higher thermal system integrity, diagnostic system Agency implemented its current and sensitivity and general driveability. most stringent emission standards—the margins to accommodate the effects of enleanment with gasoline-ethanol Without the results from this test Tier 2 standards, with full program, EPA would not have had the blends. Regardless of their approach, all implementation for light-duty motor information necessary to properly assess manufacturers have warranted their Tier vehicles and trucks and medium duty the long-term exhaust emission 2 vehicles for operation on E10, and we passenger motor vehicles completed by (durability) performance of E15. believe, based on available data, that MY2007. Importantly, in order to Program results indicate that the they are capable of operating on comply with Tier 2 full useful life changes manufacturers made gasoline-ethanol blends up to E15 as requirements, additional changes were (calibration, hardware, etc.) to their well. required to ensure the durability of the motor vehicles to comply with the Tier exhaust and evaporative emission The test data that has been collected 2 standards have in fact resulted in the control systems over ‘‘real world’’ supports our engineering assessment. capability of the motor vehicle catalysts conditions. Several test programs were conducted to withstand the additional enleanment As a result of all of these standards, by CRC, the National Renewable Energy caused by E15, regardless of whether or Tier 2 motor vehicles (i.e. motor Laboratory (NREL), Oak Ridge National not the motor vehicles utilized learned vehicles subject to the Tier 2 standards) Laboratory and DOE to study the effects fuel trim while in open-loop operation. are more technologically advanced and of E15 on Tier 2 vehicles, with the key The test program results show that a robust than cars built years ago. These study being the recently completed DOE representative cross section of the Tier motor vehicles have improved hardware Catalyst Study, discussed in more detail 2 fleet maintained their exhaust as well as more sophisticated emissions below. The CRC Screening Study and emission performance on E15 over the control systems and strategies to help the DOE Pilot Study measured exhaust full useful life of the motor vehicles. maintain catalyst effectiveness and catalyst temperature and/or The discussion which follows contains throughout the extended motor vehicle evaluated the ability of motor vehicles a description of the DOE Catalyst Study operating range over which emissions to apply learned fuel trim to adjust for and presents and analyzes its results. performance must be maintained. Motor the enleanment due to ethanol during vehicles now have the ability to i. DOE Catalyst Study Overview open-loop operation. As discussed precisely adjust for changes in the A/F The Intermediate Ethanol Blends ratio of the engine and ultimately above, leaner, hotter exhaust subjects the catalyst to greater risk of high Emissions Controls Durability Test maintain peak catalyst efficiency under Program (‘‘DOE Catalyst Study’’) was almost any condition, such as exposure temperatures and long-term catalyst deterioration and damage, and applying established in 2008, following to oxygenated fuels like those enactment of the Energy Independence containing ethanol. Auto manufacturers the learned fuel trim to open-loop operation is one of several methods and Security Act of 2007, to investigate now warrant their new motor vehicles the potential impacts of gasoline- to operate on gasoline-ethanol blends up manufacturers use to protect against this. Since roughly half of the motor ethanol blend levels above 10% on the to E10. durability of vehicle emissions control While the Tier 2 regulations allowed vehicles tested in these test programs, systems. The program was new motor vehicles to phase-in to the including roughly half of the Tier 2 subcontracted to Southwest Research Tier 2 standards from MY2004–2009, motor vehicles, did not apply learned Institute (SwRI), Transportation actual manufacturer certification data fuel trim, and those motor vehicles that Research Center (TRC) and indicates that gasoline-fueled motor did not apply learned fuel trim Environmental Testing Corporation vehicles reached full phase-in with experienced higher catalyst and exhaust (ETC). MY2007. MY2004–2006 motor vehicles temperatures with E15, these screening include a mix of Tier 2 and ‘‘interim studies highlighted the potential for ii. Vehicle Selection and Matching concern. However, the lack of non-Tier 2’’ motor vehicles. Only some Several relevant criteria were used to compensating for ethanol content while flexible-fueled vehicles (FFVs) and determine the motor vehicle models in open-loop operation indicates only diesel motor vehicles remained as selected: interim non-Tier 2 motor vehicles in the potential for temperature problems to occur, and elevated temperatures MY2008 and 2009. 36 Catalyst Durability Study, Department of To comply with the stringent Tier 2 only indicate the potential for catalyst Energy Tier 2 vehicle testing completed September standards, manufacturers must deterioration; motor vehicles that do not 2010. Final report due early 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68106 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

• Tier-2 compliant. 2 fleet in the CRC E–89 study, DOE control family, model year, powertrain • Manufacturer and sales/registration consulted with CRC and then instructed control unit calibration, axle ratios, volumes. the national laboratories to utilize the wheel size, and tire size were • Whether a motor vehicle did or did same set of motor vehicle models for the constrained to be identical within a not apply learned fuel trim (LFT or non- long-term durability studies, with one motor vehicle set. Physical inspections LFT, respectively) at wide-open throttle exception (at the request of CRC, they of the motor vehicles to eliminate (WOT). switched out a Toyota Sienna for a obvious problematic motor vehicles Other studies also impacted selection: Nissan Quest). (such as those with gross fluid leaks, EPA’s EPAct motor vehicle study at All the motor vehicles within a model obvious and excessive body damage, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) set (one motor vehicle for each fuel etc.) were also a part of the selection. which was expanded into the CRC’s E– tested within a model) were matched to 89 study,37 CRC’s E–87–1 study (CRC prevent confounding of the data by Pre-owned motor vehicles’ initial Screening Study), and the DOE Pilot undesirable motor vehicle attribute odometer readings were to be within Study. Based on the motor vehicle changes. The engine family, engine 10,000 miles amongst a motor vehicle models EPA used to represent the Tier displacement, evaporative emissions set.

iii. Fuels and Blending were designated RE0, RE10, RE15, and gasoline-ethanol blend assigned to the Emissions and related tests were RE20 with ‘‘R’’ conveying blending from motor vehicle as well as E0. (i.e. the conducted using an emissions retail gasoline. ‘‘E15’’ motor vehicle received duplicate FTPs on both E15 and E0.) The motor certification gasoline and splash iv. Emissions Test Protocol blending batches of E10, E15, and E20 vehicles also underwent compression on site. The gasoline-ethanol blends Motor vehicles were subjected to and leak-down checks at each emissions were blended from emissions emissions (FTP) and related tests at the interval. Tier 2 compliant motor certification gasoline and denatured following points during the test vehicles were driven up to their full- fuel-grade ethanol. These emissions test program: (1) At the beginning of mileage useful life (120,000 miles). The initial fuels were termed E0 (for ethanol-free accumulation; (2) at least one mid- mileages of the Tier 2 motor vehicles emissions fuel), E10 (for 10% ethanol mileage point; and (3) at the end of ranged from near zero to approximately emissions fuel), E15 (for 15% ethanol mileage accumulation. DOE consulted 50,000 miles. These vehicles were emissions fuel) and E20 (for 20% with CRC on recommended testing driven approximately 70,000–120,000 ethanol emissions fuel). procedures. At SwRI and TRC, the miles during the program. Aging fuels were produced by splash acceptance tests also included WOT New motor vehicles were first aged to blending fuel-grade ethanol with non- tests to aid in classifying the vehicles as 4,000 miles to stabilize the engine and ethanol containing gasoline obtained either LFT or non-LFT motor vehicles. emissions control systems, followed by commercially by the subcontractors in At each emissions test interval, the initial emissions test. The motor their local area, rather than emissions duplicate FTP tests were conducted on vehicles then accumulated mileage until certification gasoline. The aging fuels each motor vehicle using both the the first mid-aging emissions tests at

37 E–89, Energy Policy Act (EPAct) Light-duty Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are sponsoring extensive testing of ethanol fuel effects Vehicle Fuel Effects. (EPA and the National in connection with project E–89.)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68107

60,000 miles. This cycle was then followed the SRC as they drove the • Intake Valve Deposit measurement. repeated to 90,000 miles for the motor motor vehicles around the track. To • ASTM D5185 Analysis of Engine vehicles under test at ETC. At TRC and complete the test program required Oil Drain Samples—to assess the SwRI, the 90,000 mile emissions tests motor vehicles to undergo anywhere presence of unusually high levels of were not conducted. All vehicles ended from six to nine months of mileage wear metals. aging at 120,000 miles. Pre-owned accumulation and emission testing. • Fuel Pump Flow Evaluation. motor vehicle sets with less than 70,000 vi. Powertrain Component Inspection miles at the start were mid-aging tested vii. Summary and Conclusions of the At the end of motor vehicle mileage at 95,000 miles with end-of-aging tests Final Results of the DOE Catalyst Study at 120,000 miles. accumulations and emissions testing at SwRI, six pairs of engines were Tier 2 motor vehicle testing v. Mileage Accumulation disassembled and analyzed for signs of concluded in late September. Analysis The standard road cycle (SRC) was wear and materials compatibility of the FUL emissions performance and used for all aging. The SRC is the problems of concern with gasoline- emissions deterioration rates showed no official EPA driving cycle used for aging ethanol blends that might indicate significant difference between the E0 in the whole motor vehicle exhaust durability concerns with E15 that did and E15 fueled groups. As shown in not show up in the accelerated aging durability procedure. This is a 38 Tables 2 and 3 below, three E0 aged recommended EPA procedure that the testing performed. The eight different motor vehicles had failing emissions types of evaluations performed manufacturers regularly use for levels at the end of the test program and verifying full useful life emissions included: • Evaporative Emission System one additional motor vehicle failed one capability. It has an average speed of Integrity Check—a low pressure smoke of several replicate tests. Two E15 aged 46.3 mph and a maximum of 75 mph. leak test. motor vehicles had failing emissions The Nissan Quest aging was changed • Evaporative Canister Butane levels at the end of the test program. part way through aging to a series of Working Capacity Check. However, none of the emissions failures steady speed laps on the test track at • Cam Lobe Wear—measuring overall appeared to be associated with the TRC at DOE’s direction to accelerate cam height to indicate wear. differences in the aging fuels. There completion of this motor vehicle set. • Valve Seat Width and Valve Surface were no emissions component or ETC and SwRI used mileage Contour—to measure wear on the valve material failures during aging that were accumulation dynamometers (MADs) seat. related to fueling. There was a catalyst for aging. Motor vehicles at TRC were • Valve Stem Height—to assess valve efficiency fault code on an E0 motor aged on a closed test track. Drivers seat recession. vehicle but not on the E15 counterpart.

TABLE IV.A–2—E0 FUL RESULTS COMPARED TO TIER 2 STANDARDS 39

Year Model LFT@WOT NOX NMOG CO

2007 ...... Accord ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2006 ...... Silverado ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2008 ...... Altima ...... N Pass ...... Fail ...... Pass. 2008 ...... Taurus ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2007 ...... Caravan ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2006 ...... Cobalt ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2007 ...... Caliber ...... N Fail ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 ...... Civic ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 ...... Explorer ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 ...... Corolla ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 ...... Liberty ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2005 ...... Tundra ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2006 ...... Impala ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2005 ...... F150 ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2006 ...... Quest ...... N N/A ...... N/A ...... N/A. 2009 ...... Outlook ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 ...... Camry ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 ...... Focus ...... Y Fail ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 ...... Odyssey ...... N Pass * ...... Pass ...... Pass. Total Fails ...... 2 ...... 1 ...... 0. * Denotes that average of emissions tests were below applicable FUL standard, but had at least one test value above the applicable FUL standard.

TABLE IV.A–3—E15 FUL RESULTS COMPARED TO TIER 2 STANDARDS 40

Year Model LFT@WOT NOX NMOG CO

2007 .. Accord ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2006 .. Silverado ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2008 .. Altima ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2008 .. Taurus ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass.

38 Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Project Study,’’ September 6, 2010. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ– 39 Our assessment of motor vehicles that exceeded 08–58845 Status Report, ‘‘Powertrain Component OAR–2009–0211–14016. emissions standards at FUL mileage accumulation Inspection from Mid-Level Blends Vehicle Aging is that the exceedances were not attributable to the fuel used.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68108 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

TABLE IV.A–3—E15 FUL RESULTS COMPARED TO TIER 2 STANDARDS 40—Continued

Year Model LFT@WOT NOX NMOG CO

2007 .. Caravan ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2006 .. Cobalt ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2007 .. Caliber ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 .. Civic ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 .. Explorer ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 .. Corolla ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 .. Liberty ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2005 .. Tundra ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2006 .. Impala ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2005 .. F150 ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2006 .. Quest ...... N Fail ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 .. Outlook ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 .. Camry ...... Y Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 .. Focus ...... Y Fail ...... Pass ...... Pass. 2009 .. Odyssey ...... N Pass ...... Pass ...... Pass. Total Fails ...... 2 ...... 0 ...... 0. * Denotes that average of emissions tests were below applicable FUL standard, but had at least one test value above the applicable FUL standard.

Using standard statistical tools, the replicate tests were performed at that The results of the vehicle tear-down resulting test results shown in Tables mileage, then each emission test was inspections were analyzed to assess IV.A–2 and IV.A–3 support the assigned a weight of 0.33. whether E15 exhibited any signs of wear conclusion that E15 does not cause Tier The statistical analysis of the or materials incompatibility that might 2 motor vehicles to exceed their exhaust remaining Tier 2 exhaust emission data indicate durability concerns that could emission standards over their useful indicated that the rate of deterioration lead to elevated exhaust or evaporative life. in NMOG emissions decreased on emissions that might not have shown up We performed a statistical analysis of average, while that for NOX emissions in the FUL emission testing this emission data to assess the impact increased. However, the impacts were performed.43 For seven of the eight of E15 on the rate of deterioration of not statistically significant deterioration evaluations performed, there were no exhaust emissions. We used a general at the 90% confidence level.41 Thus, TM apparent differences at the end-of-life linear model in SPSS to perform this due to the variability in the effect across between the motor vehicles that were analysis. Each individual test motor the various test motor vehicles, we operated on E15 and E0. While vehicle was allowed its own base level cannot confidently reject the hypothesis individual motor vehicle results varied of emissions (e.g., the Taurus aged on E0 that the emission deterioration rates on (as one would expect in inspections was allowed one base emission level both blends are the same. In other such as this), there was no pattern that and the Taurus aged on E15 was words, there is a significant chance that allowed a different base emission level). the average impacts observed are the would suggest greater deterioration on This reflects the fact that individual result of the randomness in the data. E15, and none of the measurements motor vehicles, even of the same design, This conclusion is supported by the fact indicated are a cause for a concern over have emissions levels that differ to at that the average changes in NMOG and powertrain durability for the Tier 2 motor vehicles evaluated. The one area least the same order of magnitude as the NOX emissions deterioration rates went effect of fuel quality on emissions. Each in opposite directions. If the catalysts where motor vehicles aged on E15 model type (e.g., all of the Taurus motor had in fact been deteriorating faster with differed in their results was intake valve vehicles as a group) was also allowed its E15, then all emissions should have deposits. E15 showed a consistent and own rate of emissions deterioration. deteriorated consistently. Therefore, the often significant increase in intake valve This reflects the fact that motor vehicle catalyst durability test program results deposits in comparison to E0. This is design has a significant impact on the also support the conclusion that E15 not surprising given that prior detergent rate of emissions deterioration. We then will not contribute to Tier 2 motor additive studies have shown E10 to be tested the hypothesis that the effect of vehicles exceeding their emission a more severe test fuel for intake valve aging the motor vehicle on E15 caused standards over their full useful life. The deposits than E0. For this very reason a non-zero change in the rate of change details of this statistical analysis can be the fuel on which fuel additive in non-methane organic gases (NMOG) found in an EPA Technical Summary manufacturers must certify their and NOX emissions. Each emission test located in the docket to this waiver detergent additive packages contains 10 was weighted to reflect the number of decision.42 vol% ethanol. Since the Tier 2 motor replicates performed on that motor vehicles did not show increased exhaust vehicle at a specific mileage test point. 41 The Agency has typically used a confidence emission deterioration over their FUL For example, if only two replicate tests level of 90% in CAA section 211(f)(4) waiver requests instead of the more conventional 95% with E15 in comparison to E0, the were performed on the Taurus aged on confidence level. We feel that the 90% confidence increased intake valve deposits do not E0 at it mid-level test point (i.e., 67,000 level increases the likelihood that increases in appear to have lead to a corresponding miles), then each emission test was deterioration would be statistically significant and therefore would be more conservative in this case. emissions increase. As a result, the assigned a weight of 0.5. If three However, these differences are also not statistically finding that E15 leads to increased significant at the 95% confidence level. intake valve deposits appears to be 40 Our assessment of motor vehicles that exceeded 42 Technical Summary of DOE Study on E15 primarily an issue to be addressed in emissions standards at FUL mileage accumulation Impacts On Tier 2 Vehicles and Southwest Research is that the exceedances were not attributable to the Teardown Report. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– fuel used. 2009–0211. 43 Ibid.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68109

future gasoline detergent additive that measured the immediate emission of these data requirements in each of the formulations. impacts of E15 on motor vehicles studies cited by Growth Energy. Finally, the CRC engine durability spanning a range of model years, Additionally, the Alliance and others study 44 has limited relevance for the including several Tier 2 motor vehicles. argue that none of the studies submitted waiver decision because it used only Growth Energy claims that the ACE by Growth Energy used nationally E20 fuel. Initial data is for eight motor Study.45 the RIT Study, the Minnesota ‘‘representative’’ test fleets. The Alliance vehicles ranging from MY2001–2009 Center for Automotive Research (MCAR) points out that the American automobile with initial mileage as high as 110,000 Study,46 and a DOE Pilot Study show fleet takes about 20 years to turn over, miles. The engines were removed and that E15 results in decreased emissions and that a well-executed study should dynamometer-aged for 500 hours with of NOX, non-methane hydrocarbons have a test fleet that is proportionally 50% of the time at wide-open throttle (NMHC), and CO on average, and no similar to the model years that comprise (3500 rpm). Since the study used only increase in NMOG emissions when the national fleet. The Alliance argues E20 fuel and did not test matching compared to E0. Growth Energy argues that a bulk of the emissions data cited engines aged on E0, there is no way to that these studies demonstrate that E15 in Growth Energy’s waiver request focus determine the influence of the fuel will not cause or contribute to the on newer (i.e., Tier 2) motor vehicles blend on engine deterioration. There failure of motor vehicles to meet their and do not adequately represent the were some elevated leakdown emissions standards. While much of the national motor vehicle fleet and that measurements observed in the study but data cited by Growth Energy was on these older motor vehicles may be more there is no way to determine if they E20, they argued that because the sensitive to the effects of higher were fuel blend related or would have studies they submitted with their gasoline-ethanol blends and constitute a occurred even with E0 fuel. Also, application show favorable emissions greater portion of the number of motor several motor vehicles were listed as performance on gasoline-ethanol blends vehicles currently in use. Many failing the leak tests yet the motor that contained higher than 15 vol% comments recommend that the Agency vehicles passed the leak test at later ethanol (i.e., E20), those results should deny Growth Energy’s request based on points in the study. In any event, all the be applicable to E15 by interpolation. the potentially adverse effects of E15 on older motor vehicles. engines that completed aging passed b. Public Comment Summary their motor vehicle emissions tests. Several commenters, including the The Alliance of Automobile automobile manufacturers, petroleum 2. Exhaust Emissions—Immediate Manufacturers (‘‘The Alliance’’) and refiners, environmental organizations Effects for MY2007 and Newer Light- several others commented that EPA has and State agencies, noted the expected Duty Motor Vehicles repeatedly outlined in past waiver linear relationship between ethanol Instantaneous or immediate impacts decisions and public presentations content in gasoline-ethanol blends and of a fuel or fuel additive are those that important methodological increased NOX emissions. These are experienced essentially immediately considerations necessary to conduct a commenters pointed out that the EPA upon switching from the original fuel. rigorous test program which would Predictive Models, MOVES model and In the case of this partial waiver provide data sufficient to satisfy waiver the MOBILE6.2 model all predicted 47 decision, the immediate exhaust criteria. Comments from the Alliance increased NOX emissions as a gasoline- emission impacts of interest are those describe the data requirements EPA has ethanol blend increases the ethanol that are caused by E15 in comparison to required in the past, specifically noting content. These models are used for air E0, which is the fuel on which the that those test programs required the quality modeling purposes for motor vehicles were certified. The following: (1) Use representative test compliance with State and Federal air immediate exhaust emission impacts fleets of motor vehicles available in the quality standards and are based on must be taken into consideration along market; (2) conduct back-to-back motor comprehensive motor vehicle testing with the long-term or durability vehicle pair testing to control for spanning decades. These commenters emission impacts discussed in the variability; (3) compare test fuel results argued further that these increases in previous section in assessing the waiver. with a baseline certification fuel; (4) use NOX may cause a sizable portion of the This section discusses the immediate Federal certification test procedures motor vehicle fleet to exceed emissions exhaust emission impacts on MY2007 (FTP) for emissions testing; (5) evaluate standards, especially if a motor vehicle and newer light-duty motor vehicles. emissions effects over the full useful life was close to the emissions standard. for durability testing through real-world Discussion of immediate exhaust c. EPA Analysis aging; and (6) perform statistical emission impacts on other motor analyses to provide defensible results. The Agency agrees with commenters vehicles is addressed in their respective The Alliance went on in their comments that there are several limitations of the sections. However, since Growth to highlight deficiencies in one or more studies cited by Growth Energy and/or Energy’s submission and information the analyses they performed, which supplied by commenters regarding 45 Optimal Ethanol Blend-level Investigation, undermine their conclusions. The ACE immediate emission impacts of E15 Final Report prepared by Energy & Environmental study cited by Growth Energy does not were not specific to the model year of Research Center and Minnesota Center for provide useful information to assess the Automotive research for American Coalition for the motor vehicles, this section also emissions performance of motor contains much of the information on Ethanol ‘‘ACE Study’’. EPA Docket # EPA–HQ– OAR–2009–0211–0002.26. vehicles for purposes of this waiver immediate emission impacts for other 46 Use of Mid-Range Ethanol/Gasoline Blends in decision since it tested three non-flex vehicles as well. Unmodified Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks, fuel Tier 2 motor vehicles primarily prepared by Minnesota Center for Automotive a. Growth Energy’s Submission research July 1999 ‘‘MCARStudy.’’ EPA Docket under high-speed and high-load Growth Energy supplied data #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–0002.24. conditions, atypical of most in-use 47 produced from several test programs See Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers motor vehicle operation and not Comments, National Petrochemical and Refiners representative of motor vehicle Association, the American Petroleum Institute’s 44 CRC Project No. CM–136–09–1B Engine Comments, and the Alliance for the Safe Alternative certification conditions. The study Durability Study of Mid-Level Ethanol blends, EPA Fuels Environment comments in EPA Docket likely shows that the high heat of Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–14003.5. #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211. vaporization and high octane of ethanol

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68110 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

can enhance vehicle performance under standards for any immediate emission into the Agency’s MOVES model,49 that wide-open throttle conditions and high problems. By itself, it is not a basis for have been thoroughly peer reviewed. loads, but the Agency believes that it is drawing any definitive conclusions with The result is that for a typical E10 blend not relevant for evaluating emissions respect to E15 emissions performance. of gasoline, exhaust NMHC emissions under normal operating conditions as Thus, each of the individual studies is have been found to decrease by about observed on properly loaded motor of limited value in evaluating the 5%, and NOX emissions to increase by vehicles tested on certification test immediate emissions impact of E15 about 6%, relative to E0.50 cycles generally required for a waiver across the various groups of motor While the magnitude of impact may emission impacts demonstration. vehicles at issue in this partial waiver vary by a few percent depending on the The RIT Study cited by Growth decision. As a group, these studies are motor vehicle technology and how other Energy was an interim report of ongoing no stronger as they do not fill the gaps fuel properties change when ethanol is work in which E0 and E20 fuels were in each of the various studies. blended into gasoline, the relative tested in 10 1998–2004 model year Therefore, the Agency does not believe magnitude and direction of the impacts motor vehicles from the Monroe County that the studies submitted by Growth remains consistent for typical fuels.51 Fleet Center, none of which were Energy adequately support the While there is a great deal known designed to comply with Tier 2 conclusions that Growth Energy drew about the immediate impacts of emission standards. The emissions from them regarding the immediate gasoline-ethanol blends on emissions testing performed at the time of Growth exhaust emission impacts from using from the past studies and modeling, it Energy’s application failed to properly E15. At the same time, the Agency is all based on pre-Tier 2 motor vehicles measure emissions related to the believes that there is sufficient data and and only ethanol blends up to E10. The ethanol (i.e., alcohols and aldehydes) information available to demonstrate issue for the waiver is whether the which contribute to the NMOG that the immediate emissions impact of impacts of E15 would be significantly emissions. Furthermore, the testing E15 follows the same pattern as E10 in different in comparison to E0 and cause schedule did not perform back-to-back that there will be a decrease in NMOG motor vehicles to violate their emission testing of the different fuels at common (as well as NMHC and total HC) and CO standards over their full useful life, and motor vehicle mileage intervals, thus emissions and an increase in NOX whether there is sufficient information confounding fuel and normal emissions. While the magnitude of the to support such a conclusion for Tier 2 deterioration effects. As discussed NOX emissions increase is greater with motor vehicles as well as other motor below, we believe these shortcomings E15 it is still not enough to cause at vehicles. While the information were subsequently corrected in later least Tier 2 compliant motor vehicles to provided by Growth Energy was of testing through the support of the NREL, violate their NOX emissions standard. limited value, we believe that the but the data cited by Growth Energy There is a long history of test additional information that is now could not be used to quantify the programs that have been carried out on available can be used to assess the immediate emissions impacts of E15. light-duty motor vehicles and trucks immediate emissions impacts on Tier 2 The MCAR Study cited by Growth that have quantified the emission motor vehicles sufficiently to respond to Energy tested 15 motor vehicles of impacts of blending ethanol up to 10 the E15 waiver request. various model years from 1985 to 1998. vol% into gasoline. These test programs, CRC recently completed a test However, the emissions were measured dating back to the earliest days of program (E–74b) that evaluated the over only a hot portion of the gasoline-ethanol blends, have found that emissions performance of E10 and E20 certification cycle and the individual the oxygen content of ethanol enleans compared with E0 (‘‘CRC Emissions test results needed for analysis were the A/F ratio in motor vehicles during Study’’).52 The study tested 15 MY1994– never submitted or made available to open-loop operation, causing a decrease 2006 motor vehicles on E0, E10, and the Agency. Therefore, it could not be in HC and CO emissions, but also E20. The motor vehicles represented a used to compare the emissions results in a corresponding increase in cross-section of several motor vehicle performance of the motor vehicles to the NOX emissions. These test programs technologies and emissions compliance emissions standards. Furthermore, since have also shown that during normal levels, and included three Tier 1, five only E10 and E30 were tested, it cannot closed-loop operation the combustion NLEV, and seven Tier 2 motor vehicles. be used to quantify the immediate characteristics of ethanol contribute to The test fuels were match-blended to emission impacts relative to the official small increases in NOX emissions. There yield appropriate test program volatility E0 certification fuel. are other factors that can play into the Only the DOE Pilot Study cited by emission impacts, such as other changes 49 The Agency’s MOVES model has undergone Growth Energy provides useful to gasoline that occur or are made when extensive peer review and testing, and incorporates information for assessing the immediate the EPA Predictive Models. ethanol is added, the high heat of 50 These effects are based on the EPA Predictive exhaust emission impacts of E15. It vaporization and high octane of ethanol, Models and are generally consistent with measured emissions from 16 vehicles, and the design and control algorithms of conclusions of CRC E–74b report (e.g., Figure ES– including seven Tier 2 compliant motor the motor vehicle. However, similar 2). Fuels properties evaluated were based on market vehicles, on E0, E10, E15, and E20 averages and were as follows: E0 had aromatics emission trends with ethanol have been content of 29.5 vol%, a T50 of 215 °F, a T90 of 325 splash blends over the LA92 drive cycle. seen consistently in most carefully °F, and an RVP of 8.9 psi and E10 had aromatics However, even it is of limited controlled and properly conducted content of 24.9 vol%, a T50 of 202 °F, T90 of 325 usefulness in drawing conclusions studies. These studies have been used to °F, and an RVP of 8.9 psi. Other parameters not regarding the impact of E15 across the mentioned here were assumed to be held constant develop emission models, such as the between the blends. large in-use motor vehicle fleet due to 48 EPA Predictive Models incorporated 51 Results based on data mostly from vehicle the limited size and nature of the test models that predated the Tier 2 emission standards, program (fleet makeup, test fuels). The 48 A detailed description of the development of so several recent test programs have been focused DOE Pilot Study was not designed to the EPA Predictive Models is available in a on Tier 2 vehicles that will soon make up the quantify the emissions impact across the Technical Support Document: ‘‘Analysis of majority of the in-use fleet. California’s Request for Waiver of the Reformulated 52 CRC Report No. E–74b, ‘‘Effects of Vapor fleet but instead to probe a limited Gasoline Oxygen Content Requirement for Pressure, Oxygen Content, and Temperature on CO sample of high sales volume motor California Covered Areas’’, EPA420–R–01–016, June Exhaust Emissions’’, May 2009, EPA Docket #EPA– vehicles certified to different emission 2001. HQ–OAR–2009–0211–13980.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68111

goals while attempting to maintain other show the NOX emissions increase and impacts of E10 are likely to be desired property targets, such as NMOG and CO emissions decrease that comparable to those that would be aromatics content and distillation might be anticipated, this may have projected using the EPA Predictive behavior. The study’s authors attempted been due to the limited scope of the Models and that a slightly larger NOX to evaluate increased oxygen levels program, the test cycle, and other emission impact would be expected through the blending of ethanol in a changes in the fuel properties known to with E15. Thus, the NOX emissions variety of gasolines with fuel parameters directly impact emissions. Nonetheless, impact of E15 is likely to be in the range representative of those found in the real the results do not show that the of 5% to 10% based on extrapolation world. Emissions performance testing immediate NOX emissions impacts of from E10 modeling using the Agency’s was completed using the FTP at 75 °F E15 to be of concern. Predictive Models, and this impact and 50 °F. The study found a During the course of the DOE Catalyst would be expected to be roughly statistically significant positive linear Study (see Section IV.A.1.d), some back- comparable for newer Tier 2 motor relationship between the amount of to-back tests of E15 and E0 fuels were vehicles as well as older motor vehicles. ethanol blended into gasoline and NOX performed. This portion of the testing For example, a Tier 2 motor vehicle that emissions when controlling other fuel was not designed to be able to quantify had NOX emissions levels of 0.030 parameters. In other words, as the level the immediate emission impacts with grams per mile (‘‘g/mi’’) on E0 would be of ethanol blended into gasoline any degree of statistical confidence expected to have NOX emissions levels increased, the amount of NOX emissions unless the impacts turned out to be very of 0.033 or less if the same motor also increased, and this effect remained large, and in fact it did not show any vehicle was tested on E15. relatively consistent across the motor statistically significant changes in NOX Although the overall weight of the vehicle technologies tested. Specifically, or NMOG emissions for E15 compared available data shows that E15 will cause the study found that NOX emissions to E0. At the same time, the data is an increase in NOX emissions, the issue increased with E10 by about 9% relative useful in supporting the conclusion that is whether such increases, by to E0, consistent with the projection the immediate emission impacts of E15 themselves or in combination with long- from the EPA Predictive Models when compared to E0 are not large, and likely term durability effects, would cause the study’s fuel properties are input. in the same range as other studies have motor vehicles to exceed their certified NOX emissions for E20 increased by shown. emissions standards. Given the about 19% relative to E0. The test Finally, as mentioned above, RIT relatively small magnitude of the program also found that HC emissions performed additional testing subsequent immediate NOX emissions increase in declined from 8% to 16% over this to the results Growth Energy submitted relation to the large compliance margins same range. While not linear, a as part of its waiver request application. that motor vehicle manufacturers have relationship of decreasing emissions These later results were presented at a traditionally built-in to the products with increasing ethanol content was meeting of the Mid-Level Ethanol they certify,55 and the lack of any also observed for CO emissions. Blends Research Coordination Group on significant increase in NOX emissions Presumably the impacts of E15, had May 5, 2010.54 These results showed a deterioration with E15 in comparison to they tested it, would have fallen 13.9% reduction in HC (NMOG was not E0 (as discussed in section IV.A.1.a.), it somewhere between those of E10 and measured), 26.9% reduction in CO, and is not anticipated that using E15 will E20. a 6.2% increase in NOX for E20 in cause or contribute to Tier 2 compliant The DOE Pilot Study cited by Growth comparison to E0. Again, presuming motor vehicles exceeding their Energy tested 16 different MY1999– E10 and E15 results would lie within emissions standards. 2007 light-duty motor vehicles on E0, this range, these results are generally A survey of official EPA Certification E10, E15 and E20. These motor vehicles consistent with earlier studies and data showed that the average included three Tier 1, six NLEV, and models and continue to confirm that no compliance margins for the MY2007 seven Tier 2 motor vehicles of varying large increases in NOX emissions are light-duty motor vehicle fleet was over 56 odometer mileage, generally expected. 50% for NOX emissions. This margin proportional to age (i.e., older motor When EPA assesses the more recent is designed into motor vehicles by the vehicles had higher miles). Test fuels information and data available, we manufacturer to account for variations were splash blended with the believe it shows both: (1) That Tier 2 in production vehicles and changes to certification E0 fuel allowing the other motor vehicles exhibit similar the motor vehicle during actual field fuel properties (aromatic content, RVP, immediate emission impact trends usage. Additionally, data collected from etc.) to change with ethanol dilution. (small increases in NOX and small EPA’s In-use Verification Program The motor vehicles were tested over the decreases in NMHC and CO) as the data (IUVP) demonstrate large compliance LA92 drive cycle (also known as the and modeling show for older motor margins for motor vehicles operating in Unified Cycle) which is considered to vehicles; and (2) that the immediate real-world conditions. IUVP is a be representative of real-world emission impacts of E15 continue to manufacturer run program in which acceleration rates and speeds.53 The show the same trends as E10 with the manufacturers test motor vehicles for study found small reductions in NOX effects being slightly exaggerated due to emissions levels and submit the results and NMOG emissions across the the higher ethanol content. These four to EPA. IUVP was designed to ensure different fuels that were not statistically studies (CRC E74b, the DOE Pilot Study, that light-duty motor vehicles are significant. While these findings do not the DOE Catalyst Study, and the RIT meeting emissions standards in-use Study) are all of limited size and scope 53 The Alliance commented that only the FTP test and thus show considerable variation in 55 A compliance margin is the difference between cycle should be used for emission impacts. While their results, for NOX emissions in the emission standard and a vehicle or engine’s the LA92 cannot be used for confirmation of vehicle particular. However, taken together they actual certification emission level. This certification emissions compliance, it is used regularly in level includes the manufacturer’s projected rate of engineering and research work, including by suggest that the immediate emission deterioration over the useful life of the vehicle. manufacturers to measure emission impacts and 56 See 2007 Progress Report: Vehicle and Engine confirm OBD monitor operation and therefore the 54 RIT–CIMS/USDOT E20 Test and Evaluation Compliance Activities. These compliance margin Agency believes it remains a valid cycle for Program May 2010, EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– values are consistent with the general trend EPA emissions analysis. 2009–0211–14003.8. has seen for Tier 2 vehicles.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68112 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

versus only through the certification d. Conclusion cause motor vehicles to exceed their process. According to the data While data is limited on Tier 2 motor exhaust emission standards requires submitted to EPA, the in-use vehicles, and particularly with E15, consideration of the combined impact of compliance margins are similar to there is a long history of test programs immediate emissions increases and the compliance margins experienced during that have been carried out on light-duty long-term exhaust emissions (durability) 59 certification. For IUVP testing for motor vehicles and trucks that have effects. MY2007 as of August 2010, the average quantified the immediate emissions 3. Evaporative Emissions on MY2007 compliance margin for light-duty motor impacts of blending ethanol into and Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles vehicles certified to the Tier 2 Bin 5 gasoline. The common theme across 57 standard was over 60%. these various test programs is that, a. Introduction In addition, the results of the recently consistent with combustion theory, the EPA has set evaporative emission completed DOE Catalyst Study also enleanment of the A/F ratio caused by standards for motor vehicles since 1971. supports this conclusion for Tier 2 the oxygen in ethanol leads to an During the ensuing years, these motor vehicles. While the Catalyst immediate reduction in HC and CO evaporative standards have continued to Durability Test Program was carried out emissions and a corresponding increase evolve, resulting in additional to assess long-term exhaust emissions in NOX emissions. While other factors evaporative emissions reductions. Thus, (durability) impacts, the immediate influence this, such as the combustion consideration of the impact of E15 on emission impacts of ethanol are also characteristics of the ethanol itself, evaporative emissions compliance captured in the testing. All but two of other changes that occur in the gasoline requires consideration of the applicable the Tier 2 motor vehicles tested when ethanol is added, and the test evaporative emissions standards to continued to comply with their exhaust conditions under which the emissions which the particular motor vehicles emission standards at FUL despite both are measured, cause some variations in were certified. There are now five main the immediate and durability impacts of study results, the bottom line is that the components to motor vehicle E15 on emissions. One motor vehicle emissions changes are fairly well evaporative emissions that are appeared to exceed the standard not due known. Several more recent studies important for our standards: (1) Diurnal to E15, but other problems, as it also have been performed looking at the (evaporative emissions that come off the exceeded the standard on E0. The other impacts of gasoline-ethanol blends on fuel system as a motor vehicle heats up motor vehicle model experienced more recent Tier 2 compliant motor during the course of the day); (2) hot catastrophic issues with the comparable vehicles, as well as some older model soak (evaporative emissions that come E0 and E20 motor vehicles which were year motor vehicles. The size, scope, off a hot motor vehicle as it cools down unable to complete the testing. Those and design of these studies limit the after the engine is shut off); (3) running motor vehicles that complied with the ability to draw any firm conclusion to loss (evaporative emissions that come standard on E15 continued to comply as quantify the precise magnitude of the off the fuel system during motor vehicle is typical in IUVP data.58 immediate emissions impacts. However, operation); (4) permeation (evaporative emissions that come through the walls 57 analysis of this more recent data in the Tier 2 Bin 5 is the certification standard for a of elastomers in the fuel system and are large majority of vehicles certified in MY2007 context of historical data and modeling (approximately 80%). See 2007 Progress Report: leads to the conclusion that Tier 2 motor measured as part of the diurnal test); Vehicles and Engine Compliance Activities. vehicles likely respond similarly to and (5) unintended leaks due to 58 EPA, in collaboration with DOE and CRC has older technology motor vehicles with deterioration/damage that is now largely recently completed the testing part of the largest monitored through onboard diagnostic fuels emission research program conducted in the respect to immediate emissions impacts, past two decades to assess the impacts of gasoline and that the magnitude of the standards. fuel properties on emissions, including the immediate emissions impacts of E15 are Prior to MY1999, the evaporative relationship between ethanol content and higher relatively small, with decreases in emissions standards addressed diurnal NOX emissions. E–89 ‘‘Comprehensive Gasoline and hot soak emissions, but the test Light-duty Exhaust Fuel Effects Test Program.’’ The NMHC and CO emissions and increases test program evaluated emission changes on a motor in NOX emissions in the range of 5 to procedure did not require control of vehicle test fleet consisting of 15 Tier 2 vehicles 10% depending on how other fuel running loss and permeation emissions. (including three FFVs) that was specifically properties change. For Tier 2 motor The Enhanced Evaporative Emissions selected to be representative of the makes and requirements were fully phased in for models in the national light-duty motor vehicle vehicles, there is generally a significant fleet. The focus was on Tier 2 vehicles to fill a data margin in both motor vehicle Light-duty motor vehicles and light- gap, since existing emission models are based on certification and in-use to emit within duty trucks by MY1999. These new testing conducted on older technology vehicles. The requirements included both new program used 27 fuels of varying volatility (RVP), the emission standards even if the motor aromatic content, distillation range (T50 and T90) vehicle experiences the predicted standards and new test procedures: The and ethanol concentrations (E0, E10, E15 and E20), immediate NOX increases from E15 two-day and three-day diurnal tests which were blended specially to allow emission when compared to E0. with new canister loading procedures, impacts to be attributed to one fuel parameter or and a running loss test. In addition to another. Each vehicle in the test program had The Agency believes that the data multiple emissions tests conducted on each fuel above, coupled with the average the new procedures, the useful life was resulting in nearly 1000 emissions tests. While compliance margins, are sufficient to testing has been completed, the Agency is still in show that the immediate exhaust 59 Separately, the Agency has been performing the process of working with DOE and CRC to analysis needed to support the anti-backsliding evaluate the test data and develop emission models emissions effects by themselves would analysis required under the Energy Independence based on it to allow an understanding of the not cause motor vehicles to exceed their and Security Act. We are now in the process of impacts of fuel changes on emissions. However, exhaust standards over their useful assessing possible control measures to offset the since the evaluations of the data have not been lives. As discussed earlier, however, potential increases in ozone and particulate matter completed and the data is not publicly available, that are expected to result from the increased use EPA is not relying on the data for purposes of whether the fuel or fuel additive will of renewable fuels required by EISA and in evaluating the waiver request. EPA has reviewed response to the May 21, 2010 presidential the data preliminarily solely to determine whether preliminary review of the data is that it is memorandum directive. (NOX emissions contribute it would be appropriate to delay making a decision appropriate to go forward at this time with the to the formation of both pollutants.) We will until the evaluation is complete and the test waiver decision, as it is anticipated that the test incorporate the results of our analysis under this program results could be incorporated into a program will reinforce the results found in the assessment in a proposal on new motor vehicle and decision on the waiver. EPA’s view based on its earlier studies and in the EPA Predictive Models. fuel control measures.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68113

extended from 5 years/50,000 miles to beginning in 2004 with the exhaust barriers with ethanol. Once again in 10 years/100,000 miles for light-duty standards and were fully phased in by 2009 the evaporative emission standards motor vehicles. 2007 for light-duty motor vehicles (2009 for LDVs were cut nearly in half with Along with the Enhanced Evaporative for HLDT and MDPV). These standards the introduction of the Federal LEV II Emissions requirements, EPA were significantly lower (over a 50% requirements, a harmonization of introduced the On Board Diagnostic reduction for LDVs and LLDTs—as seen Federal and California evaporative (OBD) requirements for evaporative leak in Table 1 below) and used the same test standards. See Table IV.A–4 below. This detection monitors. This required motor procedures, which were introduced section discusses the evaporative vehicles to detect a leak equivalent to with the Enhanced Evaporative emissions impacts on MY2007 and .040 inch in the fuel or evaporative Emissions requirements. However, one newer light-duty motor vehicles. emissions system. Beginning in important change was made in that a Discussion of evaporative emission MY2001, EPA allowed manufacturers to demonstration of evaporative system impacts on older motor vehicles is comply with California OBD regulations durability on E10 was required to addressed in sections IV.B. and IV.C. which required motor vehicles to detect address concerns with respect to However, since the information we a leak equivalent to a .020 inch. While permeation of hydrocarbons through received through Growth Energy’s not required Federally, many elastomers in the fuel and evaporative waiver request application, information manufacturers developed one leak emission systems. This prompted supplied by commenters, and other detection system for sale in all 50 States manufacturers to change materials to available information regarding which complied with the more stringent those with improved permeation evaporative emission impacts of ethanol California requirement. blends were not specific to the model The Federal Tier 2 evaporative vehicles (LDV), light-duty trucks (LDT), light light- year of the motor vehicles, this section 60 emissions standards were phased in duty trucks (LLDT), heavy light-duty trucks (HLDT), also contains some of the information and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV). See covering older motor vehicles as well. 60 This Decision refers to several vehicle types as ‘‘Vehicle Weight Classifications’’ found at: http:// commonly used acronyms: Light-duty motor www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/weights.htm. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68114 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C b. Growth Energy’s Submission permeation characteristics of E15 to E10, the evaporative emissions for Growth Energy primarily argued that motor vehicles using E15 should be no based on the similar volatility and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.001 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68115

worse than those from motor vehicles underscore the need for more comparison to fuels that are using E10. Growth Energy pointed to investigation into E15’s impact on substantially similar to certification two studies to support this conclusion. vehicles’ evaporative emissions. API fuels may allow for ‘‘incremental creep’’ The first study cited was the E–65–3 and others argue that the fuels used in that might mask emissions effects of study on permeation conducted by the the Stockholm Study’s evaporative new fuels or fuel additives. CRC.61 The E–65–3 study measured the emissions test program do not resemble d. EPA Analysis impact of E6, E10, E20, and E85 fuels produced and used in the United gasoline-ethanol blends on permeation States. API argues that RVP of the base Growth Energy’s conclusions with and diurnal canister breakthrough fuels tested in the program are relatively respect to evaporative emission impacts emissions in comparison to E0 on test high in comparison to summertime non- are not adequately supported by the rigs taken from five MY2000–2005 ethanol fuels used in the US (9.14 and evidence they submitted. They did not California motor vehicles. The testing 10.15 psi). API also argues that since the provide any test data of in-use motor was performed on California fuels using test program did not complete the vehicles showing that they continued to California test procedures. evaporative emissions testing in the VT– meet their evaporative emission The second study cited was SHED with actual vehicles and did not standards over their full useful life, but completed by the University of utilize the EPA approved Federal Test rather provided only limited Stockholm for the government of Procedure, it would be difficult to information to address these concerns. Sweden to investigate the potential determine what the actual emissions The Stockholm Study they cited cannot effects that increased ethanol levels results for E15 would have been under be used to assess actual motor vehicle blended into gasoline may have if real world conditions. emission performance in comparison to approved for use in Sweden Similarly, many commenters noted their standards, but rather simply (‘‘Stockholm Study’’).62 The Stockholm limitations and concerns with the CRC quantifies the potential increase in Study is primarily a literature review E–65–3 permeation study cited by vapor generation rates (fuel volatility) that includes studies and experiences Growth Energy. The study did not for various gasoline-ethanol blends. with gasoline-ethanol blends in several evaluate evaporative emissions from Increased vapor generation may result countries (e.g., Brazil, the Netherlands, entire motor vehicles, but rather from in increased motor vehicle emissions, and Australia). As part of the Stockholm test rigs set up specifically to study but one needs to evaluate this in the Study, a small test program compared permeation rates with various gasoline- context of evaporative emissions control vapor generation rates from two ethanol blends. While the study also systems on actual motor vehicles. summer-time gasoline fuels blended measured diurnal emissions by The CRC E–65–3 permeation study with ethanol at contents of zero, five, measuring breakthrough of the canister, cited by Growth Energy did not evaluate 10, and 15 vol%. The Stockholm Study it did so only using very low RVP fuels evaporative emissions from entire motor found that the impact of ethanol on the that met California’s reformulated vehicles, but rather from test rigs set up RVP of gasoline blends peaked gasoline standards. Further, the test rigs specifically to study permeation rates somewhere between E5 and E10, were uniquely configured for precise with various gasoline-ethanol blends. consistent with past studies. permeation measurement and not for a This study measured diurnal using only Other than cross-referencing materials quantitative assessment of vapors from very low RVP fuels that met California’s compatibility testing, Growth Energy canister breakthrough. reformulated gasoline standards. As a did not address the potential impacts of Several commenters allude to the fact result, it cannot be used to assess the E15 on evaporative emissions that Growth Energy provided no impact on diurnal emissions of higher durability, hot soak and running loss analysis of how evaporative emissions volatility fuels. However, perhaps the emissions, or fuel system integrity (leaks control systems will behave over the full most important limitation of this study as monitored by the OBD system) to useful lives of motor vehicles. The New is simply that it was a predecessor to assess noncompliance with the York Department of Environmental much more comprehensive studies not evaporative emissions standards. Conservation (‘‘NYDEC’’) expressed in addressed by Growth Energy (E–77, Growth Energy simply used these two particular their concern that full useful E–77–2, E–77–2b, E–77–2c) 63 into the studies to argue that the evaporative life testing is needed since E15 could permeation and evaporative emission emissions of E15 will be lower or no cause increased water absorption which impacts of various gasoline-ethanol worse than E10 or E6. They argued that in turn may lead to decreased canister blends that grew out of the original since the CRC Permeation Study and the capacity and evaporative emissions E–65–3 study. Stockholm Study show no increases in breakthrough of the canister. In addition to these study limitations, evaporative emissions between E10 and Several comments noted that Growth perhaps the most important concern is E15, that materials compatibility testing Energy often compares performance that Growth Energy failed to use the showed no problem, and that if EPA can results of E15 to E10 rather than E15 to available information to perform the place a condition requiring finished certification fuel (E0) to satisfy waiver correct comparison. To grant a waiver fuels to meet ASTM volatility criteria. AllSAFE and the Alliance both for a fuel or fuel additive under CAA specifications, evaporative emissions suggest that EPA has a legal obligation section 211(f)(4), it must be shown that criteria for a waiver are satisfied. to only consider comparisons of E15 to motor vehicles will continue to meet certification fuel. AllSAFE argues that c. Public Comment Summary their evaporative emission standards EPA has required that CAA section over their full useful life. Short of actual Several commenters point to design 211(f)(4) waiver requests compare the test data on motor vehicles flaws and limitations with both the test fuel with certification fuel over the demonstrating this, the evaluation of the Stockholm Study and CRC Study which past 30 years, and that comparing E15 potential emissions impacts must to E10 would be making a comparison compare motor vehicles using the new 61 CRC Report No. E–65–3, Fuel Permeation from between two fuels that are not fuel or fuel additive to their emissions Automotive Systems: E0, E6, E10, E20 and E85 ‘‘substantially similar’’ to certification Final Report, December, 2006. EPA Docket #EPA– performance on the fuel they were HQ–OAR–0211–14012. fuel. AllSAFE continues by arguing that 62 Growth Energy Request Letter—Tab 4, 1st half, allowing comparisons to fuels that have 63 These studies are available at http:// EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–0002.12. been granted waivers rather than a www.crcao.org.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68116 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

certified on, in this case E0. Instead, continue to comply with their materials. Ethanol is also known to when considering the potential evaporative emissions standards on E15. cause degradation of certain materials permeation and diurnal emission By virtue of testing of motor vehicles that have been used in motor vehicle impacts, Growth Energy only drew their with gasoline-ethanol blends for more gasoline and evaporative emission conclusion for E15 relative to E10 and than three decades, it is known that control systems that could lead to E6, which themselves have been gasoline-ethanol blends can have increased evaporative emissions over demonstrated in the CRC studies to negative impacts on evaporative time. As a result of the changing cause elevated permeation and diurnal emissions when compared to E0 on emission standards and motor vehicle emissions. which the motor vehicles are certified. designs over the years, these impacts of Growth Energy also failed to address Ethanol impacts diurnal emissions ethanol on evaporative emissions will potential long-term evaporative primarily through its impact on the vary depending on the age of the motor emission durability concerns in any volatility of the gasoline-ethanol blend, vehicle. The discussion which follows meaningful way, referencing only the boosting the RVP of the final gasoline- is focused on the impact on Tier 2 motor materials compatibility work discussed ethanol blend by approximately 1 psi vehicles. in section IV.A.4. unless the gasoline blendstock is Despite the limitations of the Growth produced to offset the increase. For hot soak and running loss Energy petition with respect to vehicle Permeation emissions through emissions, E15 should not impact evaporative emissions, the Agency elastomers in fuel tanks, lines, valves, compliance with the evaporative believes that sufficient information is and connectors have been shown to be emissions standards (see Figures 1 and available through other studies to strongly influenced by the presence of 2). Data from the CRC E–77 test support the conclusion that as long as ethanol in the fuel, though the Tier 2 programs suggest that there may be E15 meets a summertime gasoline standards have minimized this impact some correlation between hot soak and volatility level of no higher than 9.0 psi, for Tier 2 compliant motor vehicles. Hot running loss 64 emissions and ethanol Tier 2 compliant motor vehicles—which soak and running loss emissions will content, but the impact is small, of includes all MY2007 and newer change in chemical composition with questionable statistical significance, and gasoline-fueled light-duty motor gasoline-ethanol blends and could be may be related to permeation that vehicles and trucks, and medium-duty impacted over the long term by impacts occurs during the testing (see Figures passenger vehicles—are expected to of ethanol on motor vehicle component IV.A–1 and 2).

64 Running loss emissions measured in the E–77 cycles to increase the tank temperature with more canister breakthrough measured during running programs did not use the certification cycle. The aggressive driving. The certification cycle uses the loss tests in the study, therefore the chart in Figure study was focused on the worst case for permeation NYCC which has many stops and starts, making it 2 shows the effects of ethanol and RVP on running emissions and therefore used back-to-back LA92 more difficult to purge the canister. There was no loss permeation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68117

The CRC E–77 test programs also volatility than 9.0 psi RVP during the blends. This interpretation is also support the conclusion that diurnal summer will lead to motor vehicles consistent with how EPA has evaporative emissions with E15 are exceeding their evaporative emissions historically implemented CAA section likely to be comparable to those with E0 standard in-use, but do not demonstrate 211(h)(4) through 40 CFR 80.27(d), at the same RVP. Testing performed on it. At the same time, the Agency is also which provides that gasoline-ethanol E0, E10, and E20 shows that diurnal not aware of any data that would show blends that contain at least 9 vol% emissions are a function of the volatility that E15 with an RVP greater than 9.0 ethanol and not more than 10 vol% of the fuel, not the ethanol content. As psi would in fact allow motor vehicles ethanol qualify for the 1.0 psi waiver of the volatility of the fuel was increased, to continue to meet their evaporative the applicable RVP standard. the number of motor vehicles which emissions standards. Given this lack of While the CRC E–77 test programs experienced canister emissions data and the significant potential for were extremely valuable in assessing breakthrough also increased, with seven increased evaporative emissions at diurnal emissions, their primary of eight Tier 2 motor vehicles higher gasoline volatility levels, the E15 purpose was to allow the quantification experiencing canister breakthrough at waiver can only be considered in the and modeling of evaporative permeation 10.0 psi RVP. These elevated diurnal context of E15 that maintains the same emissions separate and apart from other emissions are not unexpected since the volatility as required of E0 certification evaporative emissions for E0, E10, and increased volatility of 10.0 psi versus fuel. As long as the volatility of the fuel E20. Some key findings of the test 9.0 psi fuel results in roughly a 25% does not exceed 9.0 psi during the programs were that gasoline-ethanol increase in evaporative vapor generation summer, diurnal emissions from E15 are blends can significantly increase that must be captured by the canister not anticipated to cause the motor permeation emissions compared to pure beyond what has been required of vehicles to exceed their evaporative gasoline. However, consistent with the manufacturers in motor vehicle emissions standards. In addition to the results from the E–65–3 test program, it certification. Almost any canister increased evaporative emissions appears that the magnitude of the breakthrough would be enough to cause impacts that would result from allowing impact is relatively constant across E6, Tier 2 motor vehicles to exceed their E15 to have a higher RVP than E0, as E10, and E20 blends, i.e., no statistically evaporative emissions standard. discussed in section X, EPA interprets significant difference. In other words, However, since these tests were done on CAA section 211(h)(4) as limiting the permeation emissions are a strong a more severe diurnal cycle of 65 °F–105 1.0 psi waiver to gasoline-ethanol function of the presence of ethanol in °F (California cycle), as opposed to the blends that contain 10 vol% ethanol, the gasoline, not a strong function of the Federal requirement of 72 °F–96 °F, including limiting the provision concentration within the range tested. these test results only serve to highlight concerning ‘‘deemed to be in full Consequently, results for E15 would be the concern that fuel with a higher compliance’’ to the same 10 vol% anticipated to be comparable to those

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.003 68118 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

for E10 and E20. The results of the test by the ethanol in E15 relative to results evaporative emissions compliance program also demonstrate the with E0 would appear to add little if margins for Tier 2 motor vehicles, as effectiveness of the Tier 2 evaporative anything, given the confidence shown in Figure IV.A–4, any increase in emissions standards at reducing intervals, to the evaporative emissions permeation due to E15 should not be permeation emissions. Based on the test measurements of a Tier 2 motor vehicle sufficient to cause Tier 2 motor vehicles results shown in Figure IV.A–3, the operating over the Federal test cycle. to exceed their evaporative emission additional permeation emissions caused Given the magnitude of manufacturer’s standards.

65 Permeation here will include some background plastic components. The test procedure excluded and methanol windshield washer solvent motor vehicle emissions, such as off-gassing from canister breakthrough emissions and any refrigerant emissions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68119

In addition to immediate evaporative materials and tolerances. Robustness in on eight of the Tier 2 motor vehicles emission impacts, Tier 2 motor vehicles’ the design of these components should (four aged on E0 and four aged on E15) evaporative emissions controls systems provide the safety margin manufacturers on which they were performing motor were designed for regular E10 use, and target for volume production. That same vehicle aging and exhaust emission they should be compatible and durable robustness is what we believe should deterioration testing. They performed with E15 use over the full useful life of allow for durability on E15, and the evaporative emission tests at the same the motor vehicle. While they are tested available test data supports this mileage intervals where they measured for compliance with their applicable conclusion. exhaust emission performance. While evaporative emissions standards on E0, Testing conducted as part of the DOE this was only a limited sample size, and these motor vehicles are required to Catalyst Study supports the conclusion not directly applicable to Federal demonstrate durability of the that Tier 2 motor vehicle evaporative certification testing due to the lower evaporative emissions control systems emissions systems should be durable in- RVP of the test fuels, they did not show by performing aging with E10; therefore, use when operating on E15. The any greater deterioration in evaporative these motor vehicles must demonstrate program, described above in section emission performance over time on E15 that they meet their evaporative IV.A.1, did not show any evidence of compared to E0 (See Figure IV.A–5). emissions standards over their full evaporative emissions related problems. While EPA is aware of another ongoing useful lives after essentially operating The onboard diagnostic monitors on the study, AVFL–15, which is looking at the exclusively on E10 prior to the motor vehicles did not set any fault durability of fuel system components, certification testing. In other words, the codes for evaporative emission system our understanding is that it is seals, connections and other evaporative leaks. Furthermore, no physical performing the testing on E20 using an and fuel system hardware must be differences were found between the atypical, ‘‘aggressive’’ ethanol. designed to meet evaporative emissions impacts of E15 and E0 on motor vehicle Consequently, while it may provide standards over their full useful lives components exposed to fuel or fuel useful information for the after aging exclusively on E10. In vapor during the teardowns of the 12 manufacturers in designing their motor addition to designing them for sustained Tier 2 motor vehicles analyzed (six aged vehicles for the worst case conditions, it E10 exposure, these designs must have on E0 and six aged on E15).67 In the would not appear that it would have sufficient design robustness to same study, one of DOE’s contractors any bearing on the E15 partial waiver encompass production variability in performed evaporative emission testing decision being made today.

66 The two-day evaporative in-use data includes MDPVs, with the appropriate standards for each 67 Technical Summary of DOE Study on E15 light-duty motor vehicles, light-duty trucks, and type of motor vehicle given in Table IV.A–4. Impacts on Tier 2 Vehicles and Southwest Research Teardown Report. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.005 68120 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

68 E15 meets a summertime gasoline immediate emissions impacts of E15 volatility level of no higher than 9.0 psi, were not specific to the model year of e. Conclusion Tier 2 motor vehicles are expected to the motor vehicles, this section also In assessing the potential impacts of continue to comply with their contains much of the information and E15 on evaporative emissions in their evaporative emission standards over discussion on emission impacts on waiver application, Growth Energy did their full useful lives when using E15. older motor vehicles that is further not draw their conclusions by discussed in section IV.C. comparing E15 to certification fuel (E0), 4. Materials Compatibility for MY2007 but rather compared E15 to other and Newer Light-Duty Motor Vehicles b. Growth Energy’s Submission gasoline-ethanol blends. In addition, a. Introduction Growth Energy submitted a series of Growth Energy provided only limited studies completed by the State of information on whether E15 would Materials compatibility is a key factor Minnesota and the Renewable Fuels cause motor vehicles to violate their in considering a waiver request since Association (RFA) 69 that investigated evaporative emission standards over poor materials compatibility can lead to materials compatibility of motor vehicle their full useful lives. In fact, they made serious exhaust and evaporative engines and engine components using only a passing reference to potential emissions compliance problems not three test fuels: E0, E10, and E20 evaporative emissions durability only immediately upon using the new (‘‘Minnesota Compatibility Study’’). The impacts of E15. As a result, they did not fuel or fuel additive, but especially over Minnesota Compatibility Study looked adequately support their waiver time. In most cases one would expect at 19 metals (‘‘Metals Study’’),70 eight application with respect to evaporative any materials incompatibility to show elastomers (rubber materials) emissions, either immediate emission up in the emissions tests, but there may (‘‘Elastomers Study’’),71 eight plastics impacts or long-term durability impacts. be impacts that do not show up due to However, both evaporative emission the way the testing is performed or 69 State of Minnesota and Renewable Fuels because the tests simply do not capture Association. The Feasibility of 20 Percent Ethanol testing performed in the CRC E–77 test Blends by Volume as a Motor Fuel, EPA Docket programs (E–77, E–77–2, E–77–2b, E– the effect. As a result, along with #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–0337. 77–2c) and limited evaporative emission emissions testing, materials 70 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Metals Used in testing as part of the DOE Catalyst Study compatibility is a key factor in assessing Automotive Fuel System Components;’’ Bruce the emissions durability of a fuel or fuel Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Mike support the conclusion that as long as Timanus; Minnesota Center for Automotive additive. This section discusses Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; 68 The vehicles in this study were not aged over materials compatibility issues for February 22, 2008. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– standard evaporative emissions systems aging MY2007 and newer light-duty motor 2009–0211–0338. protocol but rather underwent rapid mileage vehicles. However, since Growth 71 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Elastomers Used in accumulation. Three vehicles are presented here as Automotive Fuel System Components;’’ Bruce the fourth vehicle developed a leak and the data Energy’s submission and information Jones, Gary Mead, Paul Steevens, and Chris was not comparable for fuel effects. supplied by commenters regarding Connors; Minnesota Center for Automotive

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68121

(‘‘Plastics Study’’),72 and 24 common Regarding the Metals Study, some made of nitrile rubber while fuel sending unit and fuel pump comments noted that 14 out of the 19 fluorocarbon elastomers have shown the combinations (‘‘Fuel Pumps Study’’ and metal samples that were tested best resistance to swell, tensile strength, ‘‘Fuel Pump Endurance Study’’),73 74 exhibited greater than 50% measurable and elongation for ethanol gasoline currently used in automotive, marine, mass changes when tested with E20 blends at 10 vol%.79 80 81 small engine, and fuel system compared to E10, and if those metals Some commenters also expressed dispensing equipment for physical or had been compared to E0 instead of E10, concerns with a particular material, chemical effects due to ethanol.75 The some mass changes would have polybutlyene terephthalate (PBT), tested Compatibility Study concluded that ‘‘the exceeded 200%. The Alliance stated in the Plastics Study. The Alliance effects of 20 percent ethanol blended that such mass changes in metals ‘‘can noted that PBT experienced a slight fuels would not present problems for be a very noteworthy indication of elevation in tensile elongation as the current automotive or fuel dispensing heavily accelerated corrosive effects’’ percentage of ethanol was increased, equipment.’’ While much of the data since unprotected metals often and that the study was performed at cited by Growth Energy was on E20, accelerate in a non-linear fashion.76 temperatures lower than would be they argued that because E20 showed With respect to specific materials, experienced under real-world driving comparable performance to E10 or E0, commenters stated that E15 will conditions. Since materials like PBT E15 should also be comparable by increase corrosion of terne plate gas undergo a chemical transformation interpolation. In addition, Growth tanks which were used in light-duty when exposed to ethanol, the Alliance Energy stated that materials used to motor vehicles prior to the mid-1990s. argued that the elongation effect on PBT construct motor vehicle fuel systems The Alliance criticized the Elastomers would be greater at the elevated have been certified to industry Study for testing raw materials instead temperatures found in real-world standards (SAE J1681) that are qualified of actual fuel system components (such driving conditions. The Alliance using fuels containing 15% methanol, as hoses, seals, and diaphragms), and concluded that E15 will damage fuel which is much more aggressive than argued that the impacts of mid-level system components made of PBT and ethanol. Since these standards have gasoline-ethanol blends on raw noted that at least one fuel system been used by the automotive industry materials would differ substantially supplier used PBT in fuel pump for the last 15 years, Growth Energy from manufactured parts because modules between model years 1993 and concluded that most motor vehicles in manufacturers vary the compounds 2004. use today should have fuel and used in the construction of fuel system Several comments noted that the evaporative systems compatible with up parts. The Alliance commented further sample size for the Fuel Pumps Study to 15% ethanol. that most of the materials tested were neither being used nor expected to be was too small to draw conclusions about c. Public Comment Summary used in the future. The Alliance also the effects of E20 and that the duration Commenters responded to Growth commented that the study failed to of the test program included only a Energy’s claims by arguing that E15’s justify how a 500 hour exposure test short-term, static soak test of 720 hours effect on fuel system materials has not period provides the ability to predict as opposed to testing periods of at least been properly studied. Many compatibility of materials. The Alliance 2,000 hours and up to 10,000 hours commenters noted that Growth Energy added that while studies have shown usually used to validate fuel pump may have selectively excluded generally acceptable materials designs and materials. Several important findings from the Minnesota compatibility with ethanol up to 10 commenters referred to the materials Compatibility Study. vol% ethanol, higher dosages have compatibility work in the Orbital 82 83 degraded certain metals, elastomers, Study which evaluated the effects of Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; plastics, and motor vehicle finishes.77 E20 on fuel system components for February 22, 2008. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– The Alliance also commented that many several older model Australian 2009–0211–0002.5. passenger vehicles.84 72 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Plastic Automotive researchers have found that the effects System Components;’’ Bruce Jones, Gary Mead, and of gasoline-ethanol blends on elastomers 79 ‘‘ Paul Steevens; Minnesota Center for Automotive may be non-linear with increasing SAE 800786, Effects of Mixtures of Gasoline With Methanol and With Ethanol on Automotive Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato; ethanol content and that a blend February 21, 2008. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– Elastomers,’’ Ismat A. Abu-Isa, General Motors 2009–0211–0002.8. containing 10–25% ethanol may be Research Laboratory. 80 73 ‘‘The Effects of E20 on Automotive Fuel Pumps more harmful to elastomers than E85 or SAE 800789, ‘‘The Volume Increase of Fuel and Sending Units;’’ Nathan Hanson, Thomas E100.78 Moreover, the Alliance noted in Handling Rubbers in Gasoline/Alcohol Blends,’’ Devens, Colin Rohde, Adam Larson, Gary Mead, their comments that over 30 years of Nersasian, A., Passenger Car Meeting, June 9–13, Paul Steevens, and Bruce Jones; Minnesota State 1980. research has led to the conclusion that 81 University, Mankato; February 21, 2008. EPA SAE 912413 ‘‘An Overview of the Technical Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–0002.28. concentrations between 15 and 50% Implications of Methanol and Ethanol as Highway 74 ‘‘An Examination of Fuel Pumps and Sending ethanol provide the most challenging Motor Vehicle Fuels,’’ Frank Black, U.S. Units During a 4000 Hour Endurance Test in E20;’’ environment for elastomers compared to Environmental Protection Agency, Research Gary Mead, Bruce Jones, Paul Steevens, Nathan other ethanol levels. Regarding specific Triangle Park, NC. Hanson, and Joe Harrenstein, Minnesota Center for 82 ‘‘Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels Automotive Research at Minnesota State University, elastomers, commenters stated that E15 Study, A Testing Based Assessment to Determine Mankota, March 25, 2009. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ– will damage fuel system components Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on OAR–2009–0211–2721. Also available at http:// the Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet, Report to www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/ 76 ‘‘Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Environment Australia;’’ Orbital Engine Company; renewable/ethanol/e20endurance.pdf. Comments on Clean Air Act Waiver Application to March 2003. 75 Effects assessed in the studies include: Pitting, Increase the Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline 83 ‘‘Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels surface texture change, discoloration, or loss of to 15 Percent, A–22. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– Study Testing Gasoline Containing 20% Ethanol mass for metals; appearance, volume, weight, 2009–0211–2551.1. (E20), Phase 2B Final Report to the Department of tensile strength, elongation, and hardness for 77 SAE J1297, revised July 2007, Surface Vehicle the Environment and Heritage;’’ Orbital Engine elastomers; mass loss or gain, volume loss or gain, Information Report, Alternative Fuels. Company; May 2004. tensile elongation, impact resistance, and tensile 78 SAE 800786, ‘‘Effects of Mixtures of Gasoline 84 Components were selected from three vehicles, strength for plastics; and corrosion and longevity as With Methanol and With Ethanol on Automotive the Holden 1990 VN and 1985 VK Commodore and measured by flow and pressure tests for pumps and Elastomers,’’ Ismat A. Abu-Isa, General Motors a 1985 Ford XE Falcon to encompass most sending units. Research Laboratory. SAE 2007–01–2738. Continued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68122 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

d. EPA Analysis more likely to be compatible with E15 world’’ motor vehicle use. Such tests are The Agency is concerned, based on its than older motor vehicles. typically used to provide a first level While Growth Energy asserted that review of the literature and automotive screening of potential materials prior to 15% methanol was a worst-case fuel for industry comments, that most pre-Tier 2 more real-world testing to demonstrate E15 materials compatibility purposes, motor vehicles, including Tier 0 materials compatibility of actual vehicle the Agency is not aware of any analysis and engine components. In addition, the vehicles (from the 1980s to 1995) and or industry standard practice that study admittedly assessed only a subset Tier 1 vehicles (from 1996 to 2001), may confirms that motor vehicle materials of materials used in motor vehicles and have been designed for only limited tested on 15% methanol test fuels will nonroad products over the years, and exposure to E10 and consequently may cover gasoline-ethanol blends up to provided no information with which to have the potential for increased 15% for materials compatibility and correlate the materials tested with those materials degradation with the use of evaporative emissions purposes. SAE in use in either the MY2007 and newer E15. This potential for materials J1681 provides specifications and motor vehicles or older motor vehicles degradation may make the emissions formulations for evaluating oxygenates and nonroad products. Manufacturers control and fuel systems more in gasoline, including ethanol, on have continually modified engine, fuel susceptible to corrosion and chemical automotive fuel system components.85 system, and emissions control system reactions from E15 when compared to EPA’s evaluation of SAE J1681 does not materials over the years in response to the certification fuels for these motor reveal that 15% methanol would be the technology needs, in-use fuel quality vehicles which did not contain any surrogate worst case test fuel in changes (including E10), and emission ethanol, and therefore may increase evaluating all oxygenates. To the standards. In many cases, they have motor vehicle emissions. For MY2000 contrary, the fuel formulations for incorporated special coatings and and older motor vehicles especially, E15 aggressive methanol and aggressive barriers in existing materials to address use may result in degradation of ethanol are different, as described in problems discovered in the field or in metallic and non-metallic components Appendix E of SAE J1681. EPA believes emissions testing. Furthermore, as in the fuel and evaporative emissions this difference is to account for commenters point out, there were control systems that can lead to highly contaminants that may be present in differences found in the testing for some elevated HC emissions from both vapor these two different products during of the materials, which would suggest and liquid leaks. Potential problems production and/or transportation of further testing was necessary. Finally, such as fuel pump corrosion or fuel each product. To properly evaluate the conclusions Growth Energy reached hose swelling will likely be worse with potential worse case impacts of a mid- comparing the results of some of the E15 than historically with E10, level gasoline-ethanol blend, such as materials on E20 to E10 are not helpful especially if motor vehicles operate E15, on motor vehicle fuel systems in assessing the impacts of E15 relative exclusively on E15. Since ethanol components, the Agency believes it to E0. Consequently, while the historically comprised a much smaller would be prudent to use the aggressive Minnesota studies are informative, they portion of the fuel supply, in-use ethanol fuel formulation provided in cannot by themselves be used to draw experience with E10 was often Appendix E of SAE J1681, to the extent any definitive conclusions. Rather, the discontinuous or temporary, while that it reflects E15 according to ethanol conclusion is that actual vehicle material effects are time and exposure content, as well as any contaminant, durability testing is warranted. dependent. Thus, issues may surface that may be associated with the In the case of MY2007 and newer with E15 that may not have surfaced production or transportation of an E15 motor vehicles, the Agency believes that historically in-use with E10. gasoline product. The Agency notes that the DOE Catalyst Study has provided Newer motor vehicles, such as Tier 2 SAE J1681 includes language describing the additional information needed. and NLEV vehicles (MY2001 and potential impacts of oxygenates on Along with (1) our engineering analysis newer), on the other hand, were metals (from by-products derived from of the types of changes manufacturers designed to encounter more regular oxygenates and especially when water is have made in response to the Tier 2 ethanol exposure compared to earlier present), polymers (including motor vehicle standards and the rapid model year motor vehicles. IUVP, elastomers and plastics), and polymer rise of E10 use across the nation; (2) the introduced under CAP2000, requires systems (including laminates and multi- limited information available from the manufacturers to perform exhaust and layered components).86 Minnesota studies; and (3) the lack of evaporative emissions tests on in-use any information from commenters e. Conclusions motor vehicles. This emphasis on real- showing definitive problems on Tier 2 world motor vehicle testing prompted The Agency has reviewed the studies compliant motor vehicles, we believe manufacturers to consider different and information submitted by Growth that the durability testing performed by available fuels when developing and Energy, commenters, and other publicly DOE as discussed in section IV.A.1. testing their emissions systems. available information to further assess above is sufficient to provide assurance Additionally, beginning with Tier 2, the the potential materials compatibility that MY2007 and newer motor vehicles durability demonstration procedures performance of E15, including the will not exhibit any serious materials required the demonstration of Minnesota Compatibility Studies.87 The incompatibility problems with E15. Not evaporative emission system durability Minnesota studies were on component only did the DOE Catalyst Study not on E10. As a result, the materials in Tier parts using laboratory bench tests rather uncover any emissions deterioration 2 motor vehicles have been able to than durability studies of whole motor problems with E15 in comparison to E0, mitigate the permeation effects of vehicle fuel systems simulating ‘‘real it also did not uncover any material ethanol in the fuel, as discussed in differences upon tear-down and section IV.A.2. As a result, our 85 SAE J1681, ‘‘Surface Vehicle Recommended inspection of six of the motor vehicle Practice, for Gasoline, Alcohol and Diesel Fuel 88 engineering analysis would suggest that Surrogates for Materials Testing,’’ Issued 1992–09, pairs tested out to FUL. Therefore, the Tier 2 compliant motor vehicles are Revised 2000–01. Agency does not expect that there will 86 Ibid. component types within the Australian passenger 87 SAE J1297, revised July 2007, Surface Vehicle 88 Only a difference in intake valve deposits was car fleet. Information Report, Alternative Fuels. seen.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68123

be materials compatibility issues with complaints, no reports of cold starting, the updated summary of the RIT Study E15 that would cause MY2007 and vapor lock, or hard starting conditions, that they submitted as part of their newer light-duty motor vehicles to and no reports of hesitation with the comments showed no driveability or exceed their exhaust or evaporative E–30 blend of fuel.’’ 90 Growth Energy mechanical problems with emission standards over their full useful contends that the DOE Pilot Study approximately 400 motor vehicles lives. showed that ‘‘none of the vehicles tested driven on E20 for over 1.5 million miles. displayed a malfunction indicator light Commenters also raised questions 5. Driveability and Operability for as a result of the ethanol content, no regarding the sensitivity of the OBD MY2007 and Newer Light-Duty Motor fuel filter plugging symptoms were system to increased gasoline-ethanol Vehicles observed, no cool start problems were blends and some ongoing studies to a. Introduction observed in 75 °F and 50 °F laboratory quantify potential impacts. Honda In past waiver applications before the conditions, and no fuel leaks or submitted some limited data regarding Agency, driveability and general conspicuous degradation of the fuel potential motor vehicle sensitivity to operability of the motor vehicle have systems were observed.’’ 91 higher gasoline-ethanol blends. not necessarily been impacted by the In their application, Growth Energy Additionally, at the Mid-Level Ethanol fuel or fuel additive and therefore not asserts that the Minnesota Driveability Blends Research Coordination Group significant to the decision making Study, the MCAR Study, and the RIT meeting on May 5, 2010, a presentation process. However, a change in the Study demonstrate that higher gasoline- was made to members regarding driveability of a motor vehicle that ethanol blends do not result in possible implications of increased levels results in significant deviation from driveability or performance problems. of ethanol on the vehicle OBD 92 normal operation (i.e., stalling, c. Public Comment Summary systems . The presentation described hesitation, etc.) can conceivably result the findings of the first phase of CRC Several commenters mention specific in unexpected emission increases and project E–90 which is intended to study methodological issues with the should be considered when evaluating a the impact of ethanol on OBD systems. driveability studies included in Growth fuel or fuel additive. These increases Phase 1 of the study was designed to Energy’s waiver request. The Alliance may not be demonstrated in the investigate differences in the status of pointed out what they believe to be vehicle OBD monitors and other emissions certification test cycles but several flaws with the Minnesota instead be present during in-use emissions control information in E10 Driveability Study. First, they noted low versus E0 areas of the country in an operation. A motor vehicle stall and response rates for the drivers rating subsequent restart can result in a attempt to isolate potential ethanol operability concerns. Second, the impacts to OBD. Since E15 and E20 are significant emissions increase because trained drivers did not drive motor HC and CO emissions rates are typically not currently legal fuels for vehicles back-to-back on E0 and E20, conventional motor vehicles (i.e., non- highest during cold starts. Further, a which made direct comparison of consumer or operator might tamper with flex fuel vehicles), the study used the driveability on E0 to E20 impossible. differences between E0 and E10 to the motor vehicle in an attempt to Third, the Alliance argues that many of correct the driveability by modifying the project potential impacts of E15 and E20 the batch fuel analyses were suspect, on the OBD system but did not actually vehicle from its original certified casting doubt on the actual fuel perform any testing on E15 or E20. configuration. properties used in the study. The Similarly, Honda did not perform any Alliance and others had similar b. Growth Energy’s Submission actual testing using E15 or E20 but critiques with the MCAR Study and also Growth Energy relies on the instead used the E0 to E10 information, noted that neither the Minnesota Minnesota Driveability Study, the RIT combined with potential component Driveability Study nor the MCAR Study Study, the MCAR Study, and the DOE tolerance stack-up, to assess risk of were peer-reviewed. With regard to the Pilot Study to support their claim that having the OBD system set a fault and RIT Study, as mentioned previously, ‘‘E–15 will cause no driveability issues’’ illuminate the malfunction indicator many commenters point out that the and will not lead to the removal of or lamp (MIL). study summary provided with Growth the rendering inoperative of emissions Energy’s public comments does not d. EPA Analysis control devices or systems based on provide enough detail to conduct a negative performance impacts. Growth The Agency understands the concern thorough independent analysis, making for driveability and other operational Energy claims that the RIT Study it difficult to verify Growth Energy’s supports the Minnesota Driveability issues that could potentially occur with claims. The Alliance argues that more an increase in ethanol content. During Study’s findings by driving 10 motor testing needs to be conducted evaluating vehicles with significant mileage the initial introduction of ethanol over how ethanol affects T50 and TV/L in the 30 years ago, problems with hot fuel (between 30,000 and 120,000 miles) for gasoline-ethanol blends containing over 75,000 miles on E20 under ‘‘real handling were encountered due to the greater than 10 vol% ethanol. ethanol boiling in the fuel system, world conditions.’’ They argue that the Growth Energy responded to these resulting in operational issues like RIT Study’s drivers did not detect any driveability issues in their comments by stalls, engine hesitations, misfires and performance degradation and there were reiterating the arguments made in their vapor lock preventing hot restarts. Since no engine or fuel part failures that E15 waiver application and noting that required abnormal maintenance.89 the introduction of ethanol, motor Growth Energy argues that the MCAR 90 Application For A Waiver Pursuant to Section vehicles have evolved to alleviate these Study, which tested 15 in-use cars and 211(f)(4) of The Clean Air Act For E–15 submitted early issues, mainly through fuel system light-duty trucks operating on E10 and by Growth Energy on behalf of 52 United States design. These changes included the Ethanol Manufacturers see EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– switch to fuel injection with an E30 for a year, showed ‘‘no driveability 0211, 33. 91 Application For A Waiver Pursuant to Section associated increase in the system fuel 89 In Growth Energy’s comments submitted 211(f)(4) of The Clean Air Act For E–15 submitted during the E15 public notice and comment period, by Growth Energy on behalf of 52 United States 92 ‘‘E15/E20 Tolerance of In-Use Vehicle OBD–II Growth Energy submitted an updated summary for Ethanol Manufacturers see EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– Systems.’’ Presentation available at http:// the RIT Study. See below for more details. 0211, 34. www.crcao.com/.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68124 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

pressure, all of which have worked to blended fuels and verified during throughout the testing. For the reduce the potential for hot fuel issues winter, summer and shoulder seasons, durability program, mileage when operating on gasoline-ethanol supporting the Agency’s findings. accumulation on the Tier 2 vehicles blends. In fact, E85 capable FFVs sold Motor vehicles produced since occurred at three locations including today typically operate at similar or the approximately 1995 have been equipped one location at altitude (Denver same fuel pressure as their non-FFV with OBD systems that monitor all Colorado). For the mileage counterparts with no reported issues. aspects of the exhaust and evaporative accumulation, fuels where made by Due to the stringent emission standards emissions control system. The Agency splash blending locally available requiring precise fuel control, Tier 2 recognizes that the additional oxygen commercial fuels. Vehicle mileage vehicles have been engineered with the content in E15 will be identified by the accumulation was performed both on highest fuel pressure systems in vehicle OBD system as a shift in the fueling mileage accumulation dynamometers history which make them also highly requirements. In some motor vehicles, a and on a track with actual drivers. There robust at managing ethanol’s low boiling shift in the fuel requirements beyond were no reported driveability issues or point. The Agency does not believe that predetermined thresholds, based on the OBD related problems during the properly functioning fuel injected manufacturer’s research, can result in a mileage accumulation period on the vehicles, particularly Tier 2 vehicles, MIL illumination. However, across the Tier 2 vehicles at the various testing will encounter any new heat related many different test programs with locations. operational issues with an increase in different motor vehicles and duty The Agency’s review of the data and ethanol content of the fuel to 15 vol%. cycles, including lab testing, mileage information from the different test Driveability issues could also occur accumulation and in-use operation, programs finds no specific reports of from incompatibility between E15 and there were no reported incidences of driveability, operability or OBD issues manufacturers’ approaches at calibrating MIL illumination from the use of across many different vehicles and duty a motor vehicle for fuels it is expected increased ethanol for both E15 and E20. cycles including lab testing and in-use to encounter in-use. If the error in fuel Based on this, the Agency believes that operation. Thus, while the potential quantity, caused by the fuel properties properly functioning (i.e., within exists for some vehicles more sensitive of E15 (i.e., oxygen content), is beyond component tolerances) and maintained to ethanol to experience driveability or what the system is designed to motor vehicles will not experience an operability issues, the frequency is compensate for, driveability issues (cold increase in MIL illumination due to the likely not more than what is currently start roughness, hesitations) can arise. use of E15. However, for a vehicle that experienced in-use today. Therefore, the However, due to the large variability has a component issue or failure (i.e., Agency does not anticipate that there found in fuels in the market today intake vacuum leak, exhaust leak, etc.) will be driveability, operability or OBD which can result in similar driveability which indirectly effects the same OBD issues with E15 on properly operating behaviors, from experience with in-use monitors as ethanol content, it is and maintained MY2007 and newer fuels, manufacturers have employed possible that the increase in ethanol light-duty motor vehicles. may push the OBD system monitor over methods to counter or compensate for 6. Overall Immediate and Long-Term the calibrated thresholds and cause a fuel differences and try to prevent these Emissions Conclusions driveability issues. Because of the MIL illumination. As described in the preceding stringent Tier 2 emission standards, Tier e. Conclusion 2 vehicles required focused attention to sections, EPA evaluated Growth cold start fueling to ensure emission The Agency has reviewed the studies Energy’s submission based on five compliance while tolerating the and information submitted by Growth factors: Long-term exhaust emissions different fuel blends that the vehicle Energy, commenters, as well as other impact over time, immediate exhaust could encounter in-use. This resulted in information from the emissions and emissions impact; immediate and long- modification of calibration and control durability test programs to assess the term evaporative system impacts; the strategies by manufacturers to balance potential for driveability and diagnostic impact of materials compatibility on the need for precise cold start fuel that issues on Tier 2 motor vehicles (i.e., emissions; and the impact of drivability meet both emission requirements and MY2007 and newer). With the exception and operability on emissions. Based on operate properly when fuel properties of ethanol content, fuel properties were results from the DOE Catalyst Study in vary in-use. Because manufacturers largely allowed to vary across the particular coupled with our engineering already calibrate motor vehicles based different studies and test programs (i.e., judgment, EPA believes there is strong on their experience with in-use fuels, gasoline blend stocks varied between evidence that MY2007 and newer light- combined with lack of any reported programs and season). This included duty motor vehicles will not exceed driveability issues in any of the E15 and ethanol blends as high as E30 in the their emission standards over their E20 test programs during both MCAR Study and the program with the useful life when operated on E15. laboratory and road testing, the Agency largest amount of vehicles, the RIT Therefore, EPA is granting the waiver believes that properly functioning and study, operating on E20 throughout the for MY2007 and newer light-duty motor maintained motor vehicles will not year which included summer, winter, vehicles. experience an increase in driveability spring, and fall operation. In these two studies where the ethanol levels B. MY 2001–2006 Light-Duty Motor issues when operating on a properly Vehicles blended E15 fuel. Collectively, the RIT exceeded E15 and the vehicles were EPA is deferring its decision on Study, Minnesota Driveability Study, operated in a relatively uncontrolled MY2001–2006 light-duty motor MCAR Study and a CRC cold start manner (i.e., not driven on a specific vehicles. DOE is in the process of study 93 did not report any fuel related duty-cycle), there were no reported conducting additional catalyst driveability issues demonstrated across driveability issues or OBD related durability testing that will provide data different E15 and E20 seasonally problems on the vehicles. The DOE test programs, both the DOE regarding MY2001–2006 motor vehicles. 93 CRC Report No. 652, ‘‘2008 CRC Cold-Start and Pilot Study and the DOE Catalyst Study, The DOE testing is scheduled to be Warm-up E85 and E15/E20 Driveability Program,’’ did not report any occurrence of completed by November 2010. The data October 2008. driveability or diagnostics issues will be made available to the public.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68125

EPA will then consider these data and C. MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor available, the Agency has chosen to split other data and information available to Vehicles consideration of the E15 waiver request make a further determination on the use Due to differences in vehicle into model year groupings. This section of E15 in those MY motor vehicles. standards and technology over time and concerns MY2000 and older light-duty in light of the data and information motor vehicles.

TABLE IV.C–1—TIER 0 AND TIER 1 EMISSION STANDARDS PHASE-IN BY MODEL YEAR

Tier 1 Phase-in percentage Tier 0 MY1994 MY1995 MY1996

Passenger car ...... MY1981 and newer* ...... 40 80 100 Light duty truck <6000 GVW ...... MY1988 and newer ...... 40 80 100 Light duty truck >6000 GVW ...... MY1990 and newer ...... 50 100 * Final diesel particulate standard required came in 1987.

MY2000 and older light-duty motor required to maintain proper fuel air use fuels on the evaporative and exhaust vehicles have much less sophisticated ratio control necessary to achieve high emission control systems. emissions control systems compared to conversion efficiency in the three way The NLEV program for exhaust today’s vehicles and, as described catalyst. In most vehicles this was emissions began Federally with MY2001 below, may experience conditions that accomplished through the use of (MY1999 in the northeast trading region lead to immediate emission increases feedback carburetors. Vehicles produced within the NLEV program) for all cars and may exceed their emission from the late 1980s and even more so and light trucks up to 6000 lbs. GVW. standards if operated on E15. Vehicles into the 1990s, as a result of more This program essentially adopted the produced prior to the mid-1980s were stringent California and Federal existing California LEV certified equipped primarily with carbureted standards, evolved to incorporate more vehicles as a national vehicle program. engines. The A/F ratio of the carburetor sophisticated and durable emission These NLEV vehicles met more is preset at the factory based on the control systems. These systems stringent emission standards for all expected operating conditions of the generally included an onboard criteria emissions requiring substantial engine such as ambient temperature, computer, oxygen sensor, and early changes to emission control hardware atmospheric pressure, speed, and load. electronic fuel injection with more and strategies compared with Tier 1 As a result, carburetors have ‘‘open precise closed loop fuel compensation vehicles. The LEV and NLEV programs loop’’ fuel control which means that the and therefore A/F ratio control during largely were the start of a migration to air and fuel are provided at a specified, more of the engine’s operating range. emission control hardware and predetermined ratio that is not However, even with the use of closed strategies resembling future Tier 2 automatically adjusted during vehicle loop systems through the late 1990s, the program approaches (e.g. independent operation. As fuel composition can vary, emission control system and controls catalyst per bank on V engines). Many an engine with a carburetor and open remained fairly simple with a limited of the improvements (i.e. catalyst loop fuel control would never know if range of authority and were primarily designs, washcoat formulation) may it achieved the desired A/F ratio or not. designed to adjust for component have been leveraged by the remaining Since the vehicles at this time operated variability (i.e., fuel pressure, injectors, new Tier 1 vehicles, mainly the over ‘‘open loop’’ all of the time with no etc.) and not for changes in the fuel 6000 lbs. GVW trucks not required to ability to react to changes in the A/F composition. During this period, comply with the NLEV standards, but to ratio, the addition of ethanol to the fuel ethanol was only available in very what degree is unknown. tended to make the A/F ratio leaner, limited areas of the U.S. so the The CAP2000 program was typically resulting in an immediate manufacturers’ designs of the emission implemented for MY2001 and later emission impact of reducing HC and CO controls and the durability of emission vehicles. The CAP2000 program was emissions, but increasing NOX control hardware generally did not designed to place more emphasis on in- emissions. However, some of these older account for the increased oxygen use performance of vehicle emission open loop systems already operate at the content of ethanol. As a result, this controls with vehicles operating lean edge of combustion on current generation of vehicles certified to Tier 0 nationwide on the different available commercial fuels so an increase in and early Tier 1 emission standards fuels. The IUVP introduced under ethanol may cause them to begin to experienced immediate emission CAP2000 requires manufactures to misfire resulting in HC and CO impacts of ethanol and likely also perform exhaust and evaporative increases. deteriorated at different rates when emissions tests on customer vehicles. As a result of the Clean Air Act of exposed to ethanol. These designs These tests must be performed at low 1970, EPA established standards and continued to evolve during the early and high mileage intervals and include measurement procedures for exhaust, period of the Tier 1 emission standards at least one vehicle per test group 94 at evaporative, and refueling emissions of as manufacturers and component 75% of full useful life. This emphasis criteria pollutants. From 1975 into the suppliers gained experience with on real world vehicle testing prompted 1980s, vehicles became equipped with vehicles in-use. However, the largest manufacturers to consider different catalytic converters, first with catalysts improvements to emission controls and available fuels when developing and capable of oxidizing HC and CO, and hardware durability came after 2000 testing their emissions systems. then, in response to EPA’s ‘Tier 0’ with the introduction of several new standards, with three-way catalysts that emission standards and durability 94 EPA certifies light-duty motor vehicles on a test also reduced NOX. With the ‘Tier 0’ requirements forcing manufacturers to group basis. A test group is a group of vehicles standards, closed loop fuel control was better account for the implications of in- having similar design and emission characteristics.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68126 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Under the CAP2000 program, the OBD leak detection requirement from R. L. Polk describing the U.S. fleet manufacturers are allowed to design have all combined to compel but did not select the vehicles to durability processes that predict in-use manufacturers to develop more durable statistically represent that fleet. The deterioration. Prior to CAP2000, evaporative emission systems and focus study included no Tier 0 vehicles, for manufacturers would run traditional on testing with fuels that would be example, and the selected test vehicles durability programs to calculate encountered in customer vehicles, did not proportionally represent the emissions deterioration which generally including fuels containing ethanol. vehicles in the Polk table. The test required that vehicles accumulated Thus, MY2000 and older vehicles have program generally ignored pre-1999 mileage out to their full useful life not benefitted from many of the design motor vehicles, even though they will under highly controlled conditions and changes that MY2007 and newer light- continue to be a large portion of the fuels. Under the new program with duty motor vehicles have. Therefore, we legacy fleet for many years. These older increased emphasis on in-use emission do not have the same confidence with motor vehicles are most likely to have levels, manufacturers must confidently MY2000 and older light-duty motor operational and emissions issues with ensure that their in-use emission vehicles as we do with MY2007 and E15 and E20. deterioration is as predicted. newer light-duty motor vehicles with The Alliance also commented that The Enhanced Evaporative Emissions respect to operation on E15. many years of automaker experience requirements were fully phased in for light-duty vehicles by 1999. These new 1. Growth Energy’s Submission with developing and producing vehicles requirements included both new Growth Energy’s waiver application capable of using E22, E85 and E100 standards and new test procedures: The covered all model years of motor fuels have shown that engines need to 2-day and 3-day diurnal tests with new vehicles—they made no specific claims be hardened for resistance to ethanol. canister loading procedures. In addition, specific to MY2000 and older motor Use of ethanol blends in unhardened the durability demonstration procedures vehicles. A summary of Growth engines can result in bore, ring, piston that took effect with the Tier 2 program Energy’s submission with respect to the and valve seat wear. Deterioration of beginning in 2004 required the use of at potential impacts of E15 on (1) exhaust these components can lead to least the maximum ethanol emissions, both long-term durability compression and power loss, misfire concentration permitted by Federal law and immediate impacts, (2) evaporative and catalyst damage that is commercially available for the emissions, both long-term durability Finally, EPA recently received a entire service accumulation period. and immediate impacts, (3) materials report by Ricardo 95 commissioned by Along with the Enhanced Evaporative compatibility, and (4) driveability and the Renewable Fuels Association Emissions requirements, OBD operability for MY2007 and newer light- specifically discussing the potential requirements for evaporative leak duty motor vehicles is discussed in the impacts of E15 on MY2000 and older detection monitors were introduced. respective subsections within Section light-duty motor vehicles. This report’s This required vehicles to detect a leak IV.A. Since Growth Energy’s waiver conclusions stated that: equivalent to .040 inch in the fuel or application was for all model years of ‘‘While performing an engineering evaporative emissions system. motor vehicles, the summary of their assessment on a fleet of such magnitude as Beginning in 2001, EPA allowed submission contained in Section IV.A is the current U.S. motor vehicle fleet, it was manufactures to comply with California also applicable here for MY2000 and necessary to make certain assumptions and OBD regulations, which required older light-duty motor vehicles. approximations to allow an overall vehicles to detect a leak equivalent to a 2. Public Comment Summary assessment to be made. Due to this .020 inch. While not required Federally, unavoidable circumstance, there are certain many manufacturers developed one leak Similar to the broad applicability of exceptions to the overall findings of this detection system for sale in all 50 States, Growth Energy’s submission, the public study which may occur in the field due to which complied with the more stringent comments received tended to cover all unpredictable conditions outside the scope of California requirement. model years of light-duty motor normal operation. Without investigating each By MY2004, the SFTP was fully vehicles, and the summary of comments and every vehicle in the fleet individually for received contained in section IV.A. is its reaction to an E15 fuel blend, there cannot phased in. Additional test procedures be 100% certainty that some vehicles will not were developed to better represent the also applicable here. However, the observe adverse effects from the use of E15. driving habits and conditions Alliance specifically commented that However, using statistical analysis, the fleet experienced in actual customer driving. historically, it has taken about 20 years was reduced to a more manageable and These procedures expanded the vehicle for an entire vehicle fleet to turn over, representative collection of platforms and testing to include the US06 test, a high but with current depressed sales due to manufacturers. The vehicles arising from this speed and high acceleration cycle, the poor economic conditions, the turn-over methodology were evaluated and served as SCO3 test, an air conditioning test cycle rate could be slower in the near future representative vehicles for the time period. run in an environmental test chamber at and that a well-executed study should The effect of E15 on various vehicle ° ° have a test fleet that is proportionally systems were assessed for vehicles in the 95 F, and a 20 F cold test run on the 1994 to 2000 MY time period. Overall, FTP cycle. These additional test cycles similar to the model years that comprise moving from the use of E10 to E15 in the coupled with the in-use testing required the national fleet. The Alliance argued current U.S. light vehicle fleet is seen as a under CAP2000 have pushed that the bulk of the emissions data cited low risk from an engineering analysis manufactures to develop robust in Growth Energy’s waiver request focus perspective. While certain risks do remain, emissions control systems capable of on newer (i.e., Tier 2) vehicles and do they are manageable and exist in vehicles withstanding the higher temperatures not adequately represent the national that are outside the normal bounds of experienced on these more severe vehicle fleet and that these older ‘‘standard’’ vehicles in the 1994 to 2000 MY cycles. vehicles may be more sensitive to the timeframe.’’ The tightening evaporative emission effects of higher ethanol blends and standards, the durability requirement to constitute a greater portion of the 95 Ricardo Inc., Technical Assessment of the Feasibility of introducing E15 Blended Fuel in U.S. include prolonged exposure to ethanol number of vehicles currently in use. Vehicle Fleet, 1994 to 2000 Model Years, 10 in the fuel, the CAP2000 requirement to Specifically the Alliance commented September, 2010. EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– test high mileage in-use vehicles, and that the DOE Pilot Study presents data 2009–0211–14007.1.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68127

3. EPA Analysis and Conclusion issues. The fuel systems were collected catalyst temperature and therefore a. Scope of MY2000 and Older Data to from a reclamation service in Southeast increase the emissions deterioration Support a Waiver Decision Michigan (Southeast Michigan has had rate. varying levels of E10 market penetration For MY2000 and older light-duty As highlighted by the Alliance in over the years). However, as the authors motor vehicles, which are capable of their comments, Growth Energy did not acknowledge, since no vehicle history operating with closed loop fuel control, provide information to broadly assess records were available to indicate to the fuel trim range is generally more the emission performance of E15 in all what extent the fuel systems may have limited than the range for newer motor vehicles in the in-use fleet, and been exposed to E10, if at all, during vehicles, and these vehicles may use this is particularly true of MY2000 and their lifetimes, it is impossible to draw their full range of fuel trim adjustment older motor vehicles. Furthermore, there any definitive conclusions regarding the to account for normal component are important differences in design effects of ethanol on these components. deterioration. Injectors, sensors and between the MY2000 and older and Finally, the authors did not draw any changes to fuel pressure may shift with MY2007 and newer (Tier 2) vehicles conclusions as to the potential impacts time and aging to use all of the fuel that makes it impossible to simply rely of E15 relative to E0. The authors only trim’s range of adjustment. The on data collected on more recent model concluded that ‘‘The analysis concluded additional oxygenate in E15 may year vehicles. that the adoption and use of E15 would actually shift the A/F ratio more than Growth Energy did make reference to not adversely affect fuel system the earlier introduction of E10 if the the RIT and MCAR studies which components in properly engineered engine’s A/F feedback cannot included some vehicles from MY2000 vehicles, nor would it cause then to compensate because it has reached its and older. However, as discussed in perform in a sub-optimal manner, when adjustment limit. In short, MY2000 and section IV.A, these studies have the ’’ older motor vehicles and earlier are at following limitations: The vehicles compared to the use of E10. In addition to the paucity of data on risk of having insufficient thermal tested in these studies do not fully MY2000 and older motor vehicles, as margins to accommodate ethanol blends represent the MY2000 and older fleet. discussed below, there are reasons for up to E15 due to the limits of their fuel The RIT study only performed concern with the use of E15 in these trim authority. emissions testing on 2 vehicles from There is very little test data on the use MY2000 and older and the mileage motor vehicles, particularly with respect to long-term exhaust and evaporative of E15 in older vehicles but the concern accumulated on E20 for each vehicle is more than just theoretical. Three was far less than the 120,000 mile FUL. emissions durability. This makes it difficult to rely on an engineering studies—the CRC Screening Study, DOE Since the MCAR study did not use Pilot Study, and the Orbital Study— Federal test procedures it would be assessment and makes the need for actual emissions data critical. discussed in section IV.A. highlight in difficult to determine compliance to particular the concern with MY2000 Federal emissions standards. Therefore, b. Exhaust Emissions—Long-Term and older motor vehicles. The CRC it is not possible to draw adequate Durability Screening Study (E–87–1) was a test conclusions concerning the potential program developed to look at the effects impacts of E15 on the emission i. General Tailpipe Emissions Durability Concerns of mid-level ethanol blends on U.S. performance of MY2000 and older vehicles. This screening study was the vehicles from these studies. Ethanol enleans the A/F ratio, which first phase of a two-phase study The Agency is not aware of any other leads to increased exhaust gas evaluating the effects of mid-level information that would allow us to fully temperatures and therefore potentially ethanol blends on emission control assess the potential impacts of E15 on incremental deterioration of emission systems. The purpose of this first phase the emission performance of MY2000 control hardware and performance. of the study was to identify vehicles and older vehicles. The recently Over time, the enleanment caused by which used learned fuel trims to correct released Ricardo study, despite its focus ethanol has the potential to cause open loop air-fuel rations. Under the on MY1994–2000 motor vehicles, does catalyst failure. This effect of E15 and test program a fleet of 25 test vehicles little to change this understanding. EPA the use of closed loop fuel trim to was identified and acquired with six of believes that the Ricardo study offers mitigate the effect are discussed in more those vehicles being MY2000 and older. little additional data and information detail in section IV.A.1.c.i above. The study collected vehicle speed, with which to assess the emissions The A/F ratio of the carburetor is oxygen sensor air-fuel-ratio, and catalyst effect of E15 on MY2000 and older preset at the factory based on the temperature data for four fuels (E0, E10, motor vehicles. First and most expected operating conditions of the E15, and E20). The results of the three importantly, Ricardo did not perform engine such as ambient temperature, ethanol blended fuels compared to E0 any emissions or durability testing of atmospheric pressure, speed, and load. showed that four of the six MY2000 and E15 on MY2000 and older light-duty As a result, carburetors have ‘‘open older vehicles tested failed to apply motor vehicles. Rather, they conducted loop’’ fuel control, which means that the long-term fuel trim to open loop a literature search of existing data and air and fuel are provided at a specified, operation in order to compensate for information already cited by Growth predetermined ratio that is not increasing ethanol levels. And that these Energy, commenters, or otherwise automatically adjusted during vehicle same four vehicles exhibited increased available to the Agency, and simply operation. As fuel composition can vary, catalyst temperatures when operated on focused their discussion on MY1994– an engine with a carburetor and open E20 as compared to E0. While the 2000 vehicles instead of all MY2000 and loop fuel control would never know if subsequent DOE Catalyst Study earlier vehicles. Second, the only new it achieved the desired A/F ratio or not. concluded that this learned fuel trim data and information provided in the Since the vehicles at this time operated was not important for MY2007 and Ricardo study was their visible ‘‘open loop’’ all of the time with no newer motor vehicles because they are inspection of fuel system components ability to react to changes in the A/F durable (and therefore can handle E15) from 11 MY1994–2000 motor vehicles ratio, the addition of ethanol to the fuel as discussed in section IV.A, there was that were evaluated for any visible signs tended to make the A/F ratio leaner. no such follow on program for MY2000 of material compatibility or durability This leaner operation could increase and older motor vehicles so the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68128 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

durability of these vehicles on E15 is NMHC, and CO on average, and no with E15 on MY2000 and older motor unknown. increase in NMOG emissions when vehicles will be much higher than that Another study suggests that many compared to E0. Growth Energy argues discussed in section IV.A.3. for MY2007 MY2000 and older motor vehicles may that these studies demonstrate E15 will and newer motor vehicles. However, also have emission exceedances if not cause or contribute to the failure of given that the evaporative emission operated on E15. In 2003, the Orbital vehicles to meet their emissions standards that applied to MY1998 and Engine Company issued a report on the standards. While much of the data cited older motor vehicles (pre-enhanced findings of vehicle testing it completed by Growth Energy was on E20, they evaporative emission control standards), to assess the impact of E20 on the argued that because the studies they used only a 1-hour diurnal test, the Australian passenger vehicle fleet. submitted with their application show increased permeation emissions would While the Australian vehicles in this favorable emissions performance on not show up appreciably in the study were not representative of U.S. blends that contained higher than 15% certification testing and could not cause vehicles of the same model years, they ethanol (i.e. E20), those results should motor vehicles to exceed the emission are similar to MY2000 and older U.S. be applicable to E15 by interpolation. standard. motor vehicles with respect to As discussed in IV.A.1, the ACE Second, the MY2000 and older motor technology and emission standards. The study, RIT Study, and MCAR Studies vehicles were not required to testing program covered vehicle offer little value in assessing the impact demonstrate evaporative emissions performance and operability testing, of E15 on immediate exhaust emissions. durability with fuels containing ethanol. vehicle durability testing, and Since the DOE Pilot Study focused only Furthermore, E10 had a limited market component material compatibility on motor vehicles newer than MY2000, share during the time when many of testing, on nine different vehicle makes Growth Energy provided very little these motor vehicles were designed and or models, five vehicles from MY2001 information of value in assessing the built. This raises the concern that the and four vehicles from MY1985 to immediate exhaust emission impacts of fuel and evaporative emissions system MY1993. Testing results showed E15. Furthermore, very little data has components may not have been increases in exhaust gas temperature in been collected on E15 on MY2000 and designed for constant exposure to E10, five of the nine vehicles tested with older vehicles. However, also as and especially not E15. These older three showing increases in catalyst discussed in section IV.A.1.b., the motor vehicles could experience temperature. Enleanment was found to Agency believes that there is sufficient significant material compatibility issues occur in six of the nine vehicles tested, data on older vehicles to quantify the (as discussed below) that could lead to with three having closed loop control— immediate emission impacts of E10 on elevated evaporative emissions over the old vehicles without closed loop older vehicles and furthermore time or both fuel and vapor leaks. Thus, control all displayed enleanment. In sufficient data from testing E15 while the immediate evaporative general, the increase in exhaust gas primarily on newer vehicles to have a emission impacts of E15 may not be a temperature was found to follow those reasonable projection of what the waiver concern, evaporative emission vehicles with enleanment. Furthermore, immediate emission impacts of E15 are durability would be a primary concern one vehicle in the study experienced likely to be on MY2000 and older for MY2000 and older motor vehicles. catalyst degradation sufficient to make vehicles. Specifically, as discussed in Finally, these motor vehicles were not the tested vehicle no longer meet its section IV.A.1.b., EPA would anticipate, subject to OBD leak detection, so if applicable Australian emission that the immediate emission impact of problems did occur there would be no standards. E15 will be similar for both older OBD warning for the vehicle owner. Hence, based on this very limited test vehicles and MY2007 and newer data and our engineering judgment, we vehicles—to decrease NMOG (as well as d. Materials Compatibility can conclude that MY2000 and older NMHC and total HC) and CO emissions The Agency has reviewed the studies motor vehicles have the potential to and to increase NOX emissions, with that have shown generally acceptable experience conditions when operated increases in NOX in the range of 5–10%. materials compatibility in newer motor on E15 which may ultimately lead to an The importance of this NOX increase is vehicles (i.e. Tier 2 motor vehicles) with increase in exhaust emissions. a function of what the durability ethanol up to 10% by volume, but Specifically, enleanment followed by impacts might be, since they must be degradation of certain metals, higher exhaust temperatures could taken into consideration together when elastomers, plastics, and vehicle cause accelerated catalyst deterioration. evaluating potential impacts on finishes with higher dosages.96 Furthermore, there are potential compliance with emissions standards. However, most of these studies, concerns other than just catalyst including the Minnesota Compatibility c. Evaporative Emissions durability for these older vehicles, as Study, were on component parts using highlighted by the Alliance in their Much of the discussion in section laboratory bench tests rather than comments. Absent actual emissions IV.A.2 applies to MY2000 and older durability studies of whole vehicle fuel durability testing, it is not possible to motor vehicles. However it is important systems simulating ‘‘real world’’ vehicle know the validity of these emissions to note that this group of vehicles has use. In addition, there is no way to concerns with E15 in MY2000 and older several key differences. correlate the results of the study with motor vehicles. Unlike for MY2007 and First, the majority of these vehicles MY2000 and older motor vehicles. newer motor vehicles we are not aware were designed and built prior to the Many different materials were used over of any existing test program which can enhanced evaporative emissions the years and we do not have data that address the lack of data concerning requirements. These vehicles were shows which manufacturers used which MY2000 and older motor vehicles. tested using the 1-hour diurnal plus hot specific materials at various points in soak procedure only. The CRC E–77 test ii. Immediate Exhaust Emission Impacts time. We can conclude, however, that programs showed that permeation some portion of the fleet may Growth Energy claims that the ACE emissions are considerably higher on experience changes that could result in Study, the RIT Study, the MCAR Study, pre-Tier 2 motor vehicles than on Tier and the DOE Pilot Study show that E15 2 motor vehicles. Therefore it is 96 SAE J1297, revised July, 2007, Surface Vehicle results in decreased emissions of NOX, expected that permeation emissions Information Report, Alternative Fuels.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68129

accelerated component failures beyond e. Driveability and Operability for the emissions impacts on nonroad what would be expected on E0 or E10. MY2000 and Older Light-Duty Motor engines and nonroad vehicles We are especially concerned that older Vehicles (collectively referred to as nonroad motor vehicles may not have been Very little test data was submitted products in this section) also be taken designed to accommodate ethanol regarding driveability and general into consideration when reviewing a blends. operability of MY2000 and older light- waiver application. Nonroad products for the following discussion is defined The Agency believes, based on its duty motor vehicles operating on E15. as those nonroad products that contain review of the literature and automotive However as discussed in the MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicle spark-ignition engines and are used to industry comments, that a number of power such nonroad vehicles and pre-Tier 2 motor vehicles, including analysis, past issues with driveability and operability of older technology fuel equipment as boats, snowmobiles, Tier 0 motor vehicles (from the 1980s to controls have been observed with fuels generators, lawnmowers, forklifts, 1995) and Tier 1 motor vehicles (from containing ethanol. Hence, absent data ATVs, and many other similar products. 1996 to 2001), may have been designed to prove otherwise, there is uncertainty These nonroad products are typically for only limited exposure to E10 and regarding the ability of MY2000 and used only seasonally and occasionally consequently may have the potential for older motor vehicles to handle E15. We during the season which is very increased material degradation with the have concerns that these motor vehicles different from the daily use of use of E15 even though they are beyond could experience driveability and automobiles. Due to the seasonal and their useful life requirements. This operability issues that may also lead to occasional use, consumers can hold potential for material degradation may an emissions increase. onto and use their nonroad products make the emissions control and fuel over decades with some being 30 or 40 f. Conclusions systems more susceptible to corrosion years old. Nonroad engines are typically and chemical reactions from E15 when It is the burden of the applicant to more basic in their engine design and compared to the certification fuels for demonstrate that any new fuel or fuel control than engines and emissions these motor vehicles which did not additive that requires a waiver under control systems used in light-duty motor contain any ethanol, and therefore may CAA section 211(f)(4) of the vehicles, and commonly have increase vehicle emissions. For MY2000 substantially similar prohibition in CAA carbureted fuel systems (open loop) and and older motor vehicles, especially, section 211(f)(1) will not cause or air cooling (extra fuel is used in contribute to the failure of motor E15 use may result in degradation of combustion to help control combustion vehicles to meet their emissions metallic and non-metallic components and exhaust temperatures). standards over the vehicles’ full useful EPA received authority to regulate in the fuel and evaporative emissions life. Growth Energy has not made this control systems that can lead to highly emissions from nonroad products with demonstration for MY2000 and older the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. elevated hydrocarbon emissions from light-duty motor vehicles as Growth Through a series of subsequent both vapor and liquid leaks. Potential Energy has not provided sufficient data rulemakings, EPA has promulgated problems such as fuel pump corrosion and information to broadly assess the exhaust emission standards for the or fuel hose swelling will likely be performance of these motor vehicles categories of new nonroad engines that worse with E15 than historically with while using E15. Additionally, based on use motor vehicle gasoline: (1) Small E10, especially if motor vehicles operate our own engineering judgment after spark-ignition engines, (2) large spark- exclusively on it. Since ethanol review of all available data and ignition engines, (3) marine spark historically comprised a much smaller information for MY2000 and older light- ignition engines, and (4) recreational portion of the fuel supply, in-use duty motor vehicles, we find that there engines. Evaporative emission standards experience with E10 was often are concerns about potential emissions (tank permeation, hose permeation, discontinuous or temporary, while increases with the use of E15 in these diurnal and running loss) have been material effects are time and exposure vehicles, particularly regarding long- promulgated on a portion of the dependent. Thus, issues may surface term exhaust and evaporative emissions nonroad products in these categories. with E15 that have not surfaced (durability) impacts and materials Thus, like for motor vehicles, EPA’s historically in-use. compatibility. Therefore, the Agency emissions impact analysis for nonroad has concluded that it cannot grant a The authors of the Ricardo study products concentrates on the following waiver for the use of E15 in MY2000 four major areas: (1) Exhaust emissions, acknowledge that ‘‘Many materials have and older light-duty motor vehicles been used in the fuel systems of light both immediate and longer-term based on existing data. durability, (2) evaporative emissions, duty motor vehicles, small engines, and both immediate and long-term; (3) off-road equipment. Limiting the scope V. Nonroad Engines and Equipment (Nonroad Products) materials compatibility, and (4) to light duty motor vehicles, including driveability. passenger cars and light trucks, from the A. Introduction The following table summarizes the target range of model years (1994 to Past waiver decisions were made various nonroad products and their 2000) it is impractical to complete a solely on the basis of the emission applicable emissions standards. The comprehensive survey of the materials impacts of the fuel or fuel additive on current standards are to be met after a that might be exposed to liquid fuels.’’ motor vehicles. However, with the period of engine aging which is done on This highlights the concern that older passage of the Energy Independence and either a dynamometer or chassis per motor vehicles could experience Security Act of 2007, CAA section regulation requirements per nonroad significant material compatibility issues. 211(f)(4) was expanded to require that sector.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68130 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.007 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68131

Typical emission control strategies for still use open loop fuel systems (either • Small spark-ignition Class I and nonroad products include enleanment carbureted or fuel injected) and hence Class II (nonhandheld) engines are and engine redesign with some limited do not adjust automatically for typically open loop carbureted 4-stroke, number of nonroad products adding oxygenated fuel. The result of all this is side valve or overhead valve design, air catalysts. A limited number of nonroad that there is a broad range of nonroad and fuel cooled engines. Engine products have also incorporated engine and equipment designs across manufacturers have incorporated electronic fuel injection; however the the nonroad sector, making it difficult to changes to the engine designs vast majority of all nonroad products apply data or conclusions from one (improving combustion chamber design, nonroad product broadly. For example, adding valve guides, improving cooling, 97 On-highway motorcycles have separate the following list shows the various etc.), incorporated catalysts on some emissions standards and minimum useful life trends in design changes in nonroad models and enleaned engine operating requirements, which may be found in 40 CFR Part engines due to emission regulations. A/F ratios from past richer operation 86 Subpart E. approaches.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.008 68132 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

• Small spark-ignition Class III–Class For addressing immediate exhaust products. Instead, they pointed to the V (handheld) engines are typically open emission impacts, Growth Energy DOE Pilot Study discussed above which loop carbureted 2-stroke,air and fuel referenced a 1999 SAE report, ‘‘The evaluated long-term emission cooled engines. Engine manufacturers Effect of High Ethanol Blends on performance of SNREs. Growth Energy have incorporated changes to the 2 Emissions from Small Utility claims that the DOE Pilot Study stroke engine designs including reduced Engines.’’ 98 The study conducted demonstrates that the use of E15 will scavenging, lean out the A/F ratio, from emissions testing on three MY1994 not have a discernable impact on the past richer operation approaches, and small (12.5 hp) engines using SAE and performance and operability of SNREs. catalysts (on some models). Some EPA procedures. Ethanol was splash They stated that since the DOE Pilot manufacturers have switched to 4-stroke blended with a commercial RBOB to Study shows that the engine design or mixed (2- and 4-stroke) design produce E0, E10, E25, and E50. The performance of SNREs varies where the application allows. small engine set included two 12.5-hp considerably regardless of fuel type • Large Spark Ignition Engines are (9.3 kW gross rating) Briggs & Stratton used that it is not possible to isolate the typically retrofitted automobile engines side-valve engines, and one 12.5-hp effects of ethanol on the operability of and a number of them do run on motor Kohler overhead-valve engine. The SNREs.100 vehicle gasoline. These engines are engines started out running rich on E0, In their comments, Growth Energy water cooled and run feedback but became leaner with increasing wrote that there ‘‘is no scientific basis’’ electronic controls much like their ethanol content. As the ethanol for excluding SNREs in a waiver for automotive equivalent. concentration increased, HC and CO E15, and further states that the DOE Pilot Study ‘‘found no statistically • Marine outboard and personal emissions decreased, and NOX watercraft engines were typically open emissions increased. The emissions significant impact on operations from loop carbureted 2 stroke engines. Today results were fully consistent with the higher-blend ethanol, including E–15.’’ Growth Energy also argues that there are these engines are typically open loop 4- observed stoichiometries. Because NOX no studies that show that E15 will create stroke engines or direct injected 2-stroke is regulated by standards for HC+NOX, engines. Engines are water cooled. from a regulatory perspective, the problems for nonroad engines (marine engines specifically). • Marine sterndrive/inboard engines overall emission performance was are typically open loop 4-stroke relatively unaffected by the changes in C. Public Comment Summary ethanol content. Growth Energy claims carbureted or electronic fuel injection AllSAFE and several other this study demonstrates that E15 should and emission regulations in 2010 are commenters argued that the DOE Pilot not have any impact on HC+NO expected to result in catalysts on X Study’s test program is too small and sterndrive/inboard engines and possibly emissions. unrepresentative of the national SNRE closed loop electronic fuel injection. Growth Energy did not submit any population. The commenters pointed Engines are water cooled. test data that evaluated how the use of out that the DOE Pilot Study only • Off-highway motorcycles and ATVs E15 would impact evaporative looked at 10 different small spark have typically been open loop emissions and evaporative emissions ignited engines <19kW.101 The carbureted 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines controls for nonroad products, either for commenters noted that those engines but are becoming more 4-stroke design immediate emission impacts or long- were only from three of the possible with some fuel injection. These engines term evaporative emission impacts seven main classes of SNREs.102 The are typically air and fuel cooled. (durability). commenters stated that in 2008, over • Snowmobile engines have typically They did, however, cite the 1,000 individual SNREs were certified been open loop carbureted 2-stroke Minnesota Compatibility Study to by EPA, so the 10 engines tested were engines but have recently started to address potential materials not comprehensive and nationally migrate towards fuel injection and even compatibility concerns with E15; representative. some 4-stroke engines. materials compatibility issues could Commenters also noted that the DOE also lead to evaporative (short-term Pilot Study itself says that ‘‘DOE’s test B. Growth Energy Submission permeation or long-term durability) as program could focus only on a small Growth Energy provided only limited well as long-term exhaust emission subset of these engine families.’’ information in support of their waiver impacts. Growth Energy suggests that AllSAFE also argues that the DOE Pilot request application regarding the the Minnesota Compatibility Study Study demonstrates that every lawn and potential emission impacts of E15 on tested commonly used materials in the garden engine tested showed significant nonroad products. For addressing the construction of nonroad engines and increases in emissions and greater potential long-term exhaust emission that the DOE Pilot Study concluded that emissions control system deterioration (durability) impacts, Growth Energy ‘‘no obvious materials compatibility with increasing ethanol levels. refers to a single study of ethanol blend issues were observed during [the] 99 use in nonroad engines: the DOE Pilot testing’’ of SNREs. Growth Energy 100 EPA Docket Number: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– Study. Growth Energy states in its argues that the Minnesota Compatibility 0211–0002.6:. Growth Energy Application, 34. application that the DOE Pilot Study Study demonstrates that SNREs should 101 The study contained two parts; (1) a pilot (new experience no significant materials engine) emission study and (2) a study of emissions compared regulated emission levels after a full life durability dynamometer aging. Four from a comprehensive and nationally compatibility problems with E15. different engines were used in the full life representative fleet of 28 small nonroad Growth Energy did not provide any durability portion (Briggs & Stratton, Honda, Stihl, engines (SNREs), and that the DOE Pilot data or information quantifying the Poulan) and multiple engines for each of these were potential impacts of E15 on the utilized in the study. The multiple engines were Study showed that regulated emissions used to age different engines on different ethanol were no worse for E15 and E20 when operability or driveability of nonroad blend fuels (E0, E10, E15 and E20). compared with E0. Growth Energy 102 Small spark ignition engines are grouped into argues that the DOE Pilot Study 98 Bresenham, D. and Reisel, J. ‘‘The Effect of High seven Classes and include Class I, Class I–A, Class Ethanol Blends on Emissions from Small Utility I–B, Class II, Class III, Class IV and Class V. The demonstrates that E15 will not cause or Engines,’’ SAE 1999–01–3345, JSAE 9938100, 1999. engines in the DOE Pilot Study were in Class I, contribute to nonroad engines failing to 99 EPA Docket Number: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– Class II and Class IV for the pilot study and in meet emissions standards. 0211–0002.6: Growth Energy Application, 34. Classes I and IV for the full life study.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68133

Furthermore, AllSAFE points out that through soaking fuel components 104 hours of ‘‘very light duty testing.’’ 106 the DOE Pilot Study demonstrated and this report was cited by other The RPM stability was observed to higher exhaust temperatures with commenters. After six months of decrease for both E10 and E20 over E0, increasing ethanol levels, which may soaking, the study showed 5–10% with the decrease for E20 close to three adversely impact numerous emission- greater swelling and mass gained by times larger than for E10. The stability related components, including pistons, gaskets and rubber parts for parts soaked decrease can lead to harsh audible crankshafts, gaskets, and catalysts in E20 compared to E0. The epoxy for speed oscillations which may be (particularly under off-nominal the Welsch plug, a plug placed over the deemed unacceptable for many conditions). progression holes in the carburetor applications which require stable engine AllSAFE’s submittal contained body, dissolved in E20 and coated the speeds (e.g., generator, lawn equipment, emission results on the testing of a plug. In a running engine, that could etc.).107 Tests on starting showed a Briggs and Stratton 6.0 horsepower result in the plug falling out and fuel decrease in acceleration using E20 in Quantum engine (Class I) on E20 leaking from the carburetor, resulting in comparison to E10 and E0. (‘‘Briggs and Stratton Study’’). AllSAFE a potential increase in evaporative Several commenters argue that points out that the Briggs and Stratton emissions. The inlet needle seats and Growth Energy does not provide data Study demonstrated that new engine the fuel cap gaskets swelled, which concerning the performance of many emission testing of the Quantum engine could also lead to increases in categories, classes, and families of on E20 had an adverse effect on NOX evaporative emissions. Garden tractor nonroad engines on E15, and the test emissions. Exhaust emission testing fuel tank caps and seals ‘‘exhibited data from the DOE Pilot Study is not results on the engine showed a decrease extreme swelling’’ in E20 versus E0.105 adequate to cover all nonroad of approximately 32% in HC emissions AllSAFE argues that these conclusions applications. Notable data gaps include and an 133% increase in NOX emissions corroborate the Orbital Nonroad information regarding marine engines, using E20 when compared to E0, which Products Study’s findings and highlight snowmobiles, recreational vehicles, resulted in 10.5% increase in HC+NOX the need for additional research into motorcycles, and several classes of 103 emissions. E15’s effects on the materials used in small nonroad engines that were not Many commenters contend that use of SNREs and other nonroad products. tested in the DOE Pilot Study. In E15 in nonroad products causes AllSAFE and others note that the DOE addition, several commenters noted, material compatibility concerns and Pilot Study found many issues with some of the operability issues may pose necessitates further investigation into SNREs that were not discussed in a significant safety hazard to operators the impacts of the use of E15 in nonroad Growth Energy’s waiver application. For of small nonroad engines due to higher engines. Commenters point to two example, commenters noted the idle speeds and inadvertent clutch additional studies not cited in Growth following problems from the DOE Pilot engagement. Energy’s waiver application: (1) An Study: (1) Three Weed Eater blower Orbital Study; and, (2) the Briggs and engines failed, one on E0 and two on D. EPA Analysis Stratton Study. The Orbital Study is a E15; (2) one Weed Eater blower would 1. Scope of Nonroad Data to Support a separate nonroad product study (i.e.: not idle on E20 and (3) another Weed Waiver Decision separate from the Orbital Study on Eater blower would not make full power Australian motor vehicles), that on E20; (4) a Stihl line trimmer had high Prior to assessing the technical merits conducted 2,000-hour bench testing idle with E15 and E20 that caused of the information submitted by Growth with E20 on materials from the fuel clutch engagement at idle; and (5) a Energy to support their waiver systems of a Mercury 15hp Marine Briggs and Stratton 3500 kW generator application with respect to nonroad Outboard engine and a Stihl F45R Line stalled and experienced loss of power products, it is necessary to first assess Trimmer (‘‘Orbital Nonroad Products and abrupt stopping of the engine on the completeness of the application. Study’’). The Orbital Nonroad Product E20. Listed above are four major categories of Study found that E20 caused severe Commenters also point to the nonroad engines, and these categories corrosion, rusting and pitting of metallic operability problems that arose in the are further broken down into various and brass components, such as the Briggs and Stratton Study. In the study, classes based on the fundamental carburetor body and throttle, piston a 6.0 HP Quantum engine was used for differences in engine and vehicle design rings, crankshaft seal housing, temperature, durability and within these classes. EPA has crankshaft bearings and surfaces, performance, and evaporative testing. promulgated exhaust and evaporative connecting rod, cylinder liner, throttle AllSAFE and others note that higher emission standards for these different blades. The study also found that E20 operating temperatures were observed categories at various times and these caused swelling, distortion and with increasing ethanol content. The regulations have resulted in various degradation of the fuel delivery hose, authors say that the higher temperatures approaches to engine calibration and 108 fuel primer bulbs, fuel line connector, caused material compatibility issues, design. Therefore, to assess the and crankshaft seal. The Orbital citing a head gasket failure after 25 potential impacts of E15 on nonroad Nonroad Products Study concluded that products requires data representing the these problems would likely cause: (1) 104 The Briggs and Stratton Study stated ‘‘A fuel cross section of different nonroad Oxides that may dislodge and damage soak test was performed on all parts that come into engine categories. EPA highlighted this the engine; (2) the loss of intended fuel- direct contact with the fuel. These parts include necessity in discussions with Growth carburetor bodies of zinc and aluminum, brass fuel Energy, RFA, DOE, and other air metering and control, and (3) fuel metering jets, rubber and fiber gaskets, rubber leakage. primer bulbs, floats, and fuel bowls.’’ No engine was The Briggs and Stratton Study specifically mentioned. 106 EPA Docket Number: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– submitted in Exhibit C of the AllSAFE 105 It was not clear exactly what parts were used 0211–2559. comments contains evaluations of the for the fuel soaking tests. It was stated in the study 107 Generator sets need constant speed in order to that a 6.0 HP Quantum engine was used, provide reliable power for tasks. Lawnmowers impacts of E20 on EPA-certified engines specifically ‘‘engine 123K02 0239E1 04061458 was require consistent engine speed in order to maintain used for all testing except exhaust emissions.’’ constant blade tip speed whose top speed is 103 HC reduction estimated from graph while NoX However, it was stated that ‘‘parts’’ were soaked, not governed by a safety standard. 108 and HC+NOX changes were stated in the report. an engine. See Tables in 73 FR 59034, 59036 (10/8/08).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

stakeholders even prior to the receipt of Growth Energy has not provided impacts of E15 on the emission the E15 waiver application.109 information to broadly assess the performance of nonroad products. In The following table summarizes the nonroad engine and vehicle sector, addition, as discussed below, there are many potential breakouts of nonroad since there are important differences in reasons for concern with the use of E15 engine technologies currently in the in- design between the various classes and in nonroad products, particularly with use fleet. Growth Energy gave us data in categories, and since the Agency is not respect to long-term exhaust and four areas shown below. Even in areas aware of other information that would evaporative emissions durability, and in which Growth Energy provided data, allow us to do so, it is not possible for materials compatibility, so the need for those data were very limited. Since the Agency to fully assess the potential data is all the more important.

TABLE V.D–1—NONROAD ENGINES AND ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES OVER THE PAST 14 YEARS

Pre-reg: Phase 1: Phase 1: Phase 2: SMALL SI Pre-reg: 4-stroke 4-stroke 2-stroke Phase 2: 2-stroke Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 3: 2-stroke (ohv/sv) (ohv/sv) w/cat w/cat 4-stroke w/cat

Class I ...... X ...... X ohv ..... X sv ...... - ...... - ...... - ...... X sv ** .... X sv ...... X sv ...... X SV ...... Xohv ...... X ohv ** X ohv ..... Class II ...... - ...... X sv ** .... X sv ...... - ...... - ...... - ...... X ohv ..... X ohv ..... - ...... X ohv ** X ohv ...... Class III ...... X ...... - ...... X ...... X ...... - ...... X ...... - ...... - ...... - Class IV ...... X ...... - ...... X ...... X ...... - ...... X ** ...... X ** ...... - ...... - Class V ...... X ...... - ...... X ...... X ...... - ...... X ...... - ...... - ...... - Phase 2: Pre-reg: Phase 1: 4-str MARINE Pre-reg: 2-stroke Phase 1: Phase 1: 4-stroke Phase 1: closed 2-stroke IDI 4-stroke 2 DI Carb 4-EFI loop catalyst

Outboard ...... X ...... X ...... X (few) ... X ...... X ...... X ...... - PWC ...... X ...... X ...... - ...... X ...... - ...... X ...... - SD/I ...... - ...... - ...... X ...... - ...... X ...... X ...... X

Phase 1: Pre-reg: Pre-reg: 4-stroke Phase 1: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 3: RECREATIONAL 2-stroke 4-stroke closed 4-stroke 2-stroke 2-stroke 2-stroke 4-stroke crankcase

NRMC ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... X* ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... Snow Mobiles ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... ATV ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... X ...... - ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... *NRMC: allows 2-stroke competition bikes. ** Data Provided by Growth Energy on one/two engine families per group.

2. Long-Term Exhaust Emissions between engines and engine operating engines were tested on non-ethanol (Durability) conditions. In addition to the NOX fuels when new and at the end of aging Ethanol contains oxygenates which emission increases that are observed on their respective fuel. The change in result in a leaner operating A/F ratio. almost immediately with increased emissions on non-ethanol fuel gives a Unlike light-duty vehicles, the ethanol levels, there is a concern that an basis for comparison of the deterioration overwhelming majority of nonroad increase in temperature can compromise effects of aging on various ethanol blend engines are ‘‘open loop’’ and do not long-term durability of the engines fuels.111 For the B&S Class I engines, it automatically adjust for oxygenated resulting in a significant deterioration of was found that the non-ethanol aged content of the fuel. Hence they are all emissions over time. engine leaned over time with CO subject to direct and continuous effects The potential for an increase in decreasing and NOX increasing. For the to changes in combustion characteristics operating temperatures to cause long- ethanol aged engine, the increases in CO (i.e., leaner mixture) of increased term durability issues for engines is along with the increases in HC illustrate ethanol in the fuel which typically shown in the accelerated full life aging the possibility of valve warpage and result in hotter combustion and exhaust emission results in the DOE Pilot valve seat distortion, or piston/piston temperatures during operation. These Study110. Four new Class I B&S ring/engine block distortion due to the changes in combustion result in general consumer and four new Class I Honda increased combustion temperatures. In increases in NOX emissions and commercial engines were aged on non- these cases the combustion becomes less decreases in HC emissions. This ethanol and ethanol blends (one engine efficient, and hence CO and HC increase in temperature will vary each on E0, E10, E15 and E20). All emissions increase, due to the leak past

109 EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– 111 DOE Pilot Study contained data from which 14%, and CO changes of +36%, +109% and +17%, 2559.2, API Technology Committee Meeting, the following changes in emissions were calculated. respectively. The Honda commercial engine Chicago, 6/4/08. On the B&S consumer engines, the engine aged on showed that the engine aged on non-ethanol fuel 110 Effects of long term storage and seasonal use non-ethanol fuel had no change in HC, +76% in had emission changes of +25% HC, 0%NOX and NO and ¥47% in CO. The engines aged on E10, 14%CO. The engines aged on E10, E15 and E20: were not captured in the accelerated aging. X E15 and E20 showed changes in HC of +44%, HC: 4%, 42% and 69%, NOX: 11%, ¥14%, ¥16% +149%, +99% and NOX changes of ¥5%, 0% and and CO: +5%,+16%,+24%, respectively.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68135

the valves or piston rings. The Honda in engine seizure in which the metal of testing on three MY1994 SNREs (12.5 Class I engine aged on non-ethanol the piston, piston rings and engine hp) engines using SAE and EPA showed small increases in both HC and cylinder expand into each other due to procedures and showed that pre- CO, however the trend was clear in the the increased temperatures and hence regulation Class II engines experienced ethanol engines that the HC and CO cannot function. a similar trend with respect to emissions increased and NOX decreased While data on long-term durability on immediate exhaust emission impacts as in line with increasing amounts of E15 of other nonroad categories does not Class I engines in the DOE Pilot Study. ethanol. Some of the variability in currently exist, we believe that many of In their comments, AllSAFE also emission results are due to the fact that the concerns expressed regarding small pointed to recent testing described in a these engines are mechanically SI engines may to varying degrees be Briggs and Stratton Study of exhaust governed, single cylinder (high indicative of other nonroad categories as emission testing on a Quantum engine vibration), carbureted, open loop, air well. These concerns include concerns using E20. It showed a decrease in HC of open loop carburetion or open loop and fuel cooled and hence engine aging emissions and a 133% increase in NOx is subject to a number of mechanical fuel injection and enleaned 4-stroke emissions using E20 when compared to and quality factors. engine running on a fuel with E0, which resulted in 10.5% increase in The DOE Pilot Study cited by Growth oxygenates where there used to be HC + NOx emissions. While it was on Energy assessed the potential long-term richer running 2-stroke or 4-stroke E20 instead of E15, this data is still durability emission effects of several engines. helpful in showing that despite a very SNREs in the <19kW category that were 3. Immediate Exhaust Emission Effects large percentage impact on NOx aged under conditions that were emissions, the overall immediate representative of aging for emission In evaluating the emission impacts of a new fuel or fuel additive, the Agency emission impact of E15 on the standards (constant dynamometer combined HC+NO emission standard is aging). While the study was limited and not only considers potential long-term x durability impacts, as discussed above, likely to be a relatively small one. there was considerable variability in the Nevertheless, since the available studies results across the engines tested, as but also the existence and magnitude of any immediate exhaust emission do not provide data for other nonroad AllSAFE highlights, the fact that two engine categories it is unclear how Weed Eater blower engines failed on impacts that are evident immediately upon switching to the new fuel or fuel broadly these results can be E15, a Stihl line trimmer had high idle extrapolated across other nonroad with E15, and other problems were additive. Growth Energy referred to two studies for immediate tailpipe emission products. Therefore the number of experienced with testing on E20, engines and applications tested needs to suggests the potential for serious effects and they include the DOE Pilot Study and a 1999 study on ‘‘The Effect be widened before any conclusions can durability concerns with E15 in nonroad be made for all of nonroad products. products. At a minimum, a of High Ethanol Blends on Emissions comprehensive nonroad test program from Small Utility Engines’’. 4. Evaporative Emissions would be needed to support Growth The DOE Pilot Study contained Energy’s assertions. We know of no such emissions at new engine condition for Different evaporative emission program underway. two sets of Phase 2 SNRE’s. One set was standards have been established for the The engine failures in the DOE Pilot used for the pilot study and the second different nonroad engine categories. As Study are also consistent with our set was used for the useful life shown in Tables V.D.4–1 and V.D.4–2 engineering assessment. The leaner durability study. The results showed below, evaporative emissions standards operation and subsequently hotter that emission changes from the use of for nonroad products are focused on burning mixture and exhaust E15 resulted in increased NOx emissions three aspects: (1) Fuel line and fuel tank temperatures expose engine components and decreased HC and CO emissions. permeation; (2) vapor loss through to operating temperatures which may be For both Class I engines the HC and CO diurnal or running loss conditions beyond design expectations for a emissions decreased and NOx emissions where the volatility of the fuel will be particular engine. Unlike light-duty increased in comparison to E0. The important for compliance; and, (3) the vehicles which implement liquid overall change of HC+NOx (the form of durability of the nonroad product in cooling systems (i.e., antifreeze) to the emissions standard for nonroad achieving these standards over its full control vital engine component engines) for a particular engine was useful life. The test fuel for fuel tank temperatures, most nonroad engines dependent on whether the NOx permeation is E10 and the test fuel for rely on air and fuel cooling. Proper increased more than the HC decreased, hose permeation is CE10. The test fuel cooling on air cooled engines depends but in general it appears that the two for the diurnal standards is certification on anticipated combustion and exhaust changes tended to balance each other fuel (E0) with a volatility of 9.0 RVP. temperatures which are mainly out for the engines and fuels tested. These standards came into effect in controlled by the A/F mixture. Class II engines were examined in a 2007 for Large SI engines, 2008 for 112 Depending on the engine category, second study referred to by Growth recreational vehicles and are being engine cooling may be critical to Energy. The study conducted emission phased in from 2009–2015 for Small SI durability and therefore the ability to engines and Marine SI engines. For each 112 Bresenham, D. and Reisel, J. ‘‘The Effect of of these standards, permeation continue to operate on E15. Some High Ethanol Blends on Emissions from Small engines that run too lean for an Utility Engines,’’ SAE 1999–01–3345, JSAE requirements are based on the use of a extended period of time may also result 9938100, 1999. test fuel containing 10 vol% ethanol.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Growth Energy did not submit any is that as long as E15 meets the same testing on light-duty fuel tanks (CRC data that evaluated how the use of E15 volatility as E0 certification fuel (9.0 psi E77 studies) seems to suggest would impact evaporative emissions RVP), then its emissions performance permeation with E15 may be and evaporative emissions controls for should be comparable. Testing on comparable to that with E10, assuming nonroad products, and instead relied on vehicles discussed in section IV.A.3. has the RVP will not increase between the light-duty motor vehicle information. shown that diurnal emissions are two fuels. Since nonroad permeation The Agency is not aware of any test data primarily a function of the volatility of standards already use E10 as the test to evaluate these impacts of E15 on the fuel, not the ethanol content, and fuel, this would suggest that nonroad nonroad products. However, from an there is no reason to suggest otherwise products would continue to meet their engineering standpoint, it would appear for nonroad products. However, due to permeation standards with E15. The that the main concern with the use of the rudimentary evaporative emissions only question is whether the test results E15 in nonroad products for evaporative controls on most nonroad products, any on light-duty motor vehicle fuel systems emissions would be durability, and higher volatility would lead to higher would be applicable to tanks and hoses these concerns stem from materials evaporative emissions, potentially used in nonroad products. compatibility concerns in the fuel causing the nonroad products to exceed 5. Materials Compatibility system, as discussed in the next section. their standards. In the case of the For diurnal emissions compliance, as permeation related evaporative Materials compatibility is one of the for light-duty motor vehicles, our belief emissions standards, it is likewise key issues that the Agency reviews due possible that the designs certified for to the potential for very large exhaust or 113 The complete table is available at http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/nonroad/nonroadsi- E10 use may also qualify with E15. As evaporative emission impacts of a fuel evap.htm. discussed in section IV.A.3., permeation or fuel additive, not only in the short

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.009 EN04NO10.010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68137

term, but especially over the life of the ethanol blends: (1) The Orbital Nonroad gasoline in use today. The open-loop motor vehicle or nonroad product. Products Study; and (2) the Briggs and fuel systems on the nonroad engines Growth Energy argues that the Stratton Study. The Orbital Nonroad will not adjust for this and the engines Minnesota Compatibility Study Products Study conducted 2,000-hour will be subject to potential immediate demonstrates that SNREs should bench testing with E20 on materials and long-term operability and experience no significant problems with from the fuel systems of a Mercury 15hp drivability issues, such as those E15. However, as highlighted by Marine Outboard engine and a Stihl described in the DOE Pilot Study.116 commenters, the focus of the Minnesota F45R Line Trimmer. The Orbital The concern regarding operability and Compatibility Study was on the Nonroad Products Study found that E20 driveability is that if the use of E15 materials used in motor vehicles’ fuel caused severe corrosion, rusting and resulted in poor operation of nonroad systems and that nonroad engine pitting of metallic and brass products, causing such things as manufacturers use different elastomers, components, such as the carburetor misfires, backfires or carburetor polymers, and plastics not investigated body and throttle, piston rings, malfunctions, then this would cause in the Minnesota Compatibility Study. crankshaft seal housing, crankshaft short-term and long-term emission Furthermore, a wide range of materials bearings and surfaces, connecting rod, increases. In addition, it would have been used over the years by the cylinder liner, and throttle blades. The encourage consumers to adjust and/or many different nonroad products study also found that E20 caused tamper with their nonroad products to manufacturers for the many different swelling, distortion and degradation of improve performance. Most nonroad nonroad products currently in use. The the fuel delivery hose, fuel primer products that have been designed to our study does not claim to have tested all bulbs, fuel line connector, and emission standards have been required materials nor provide any means of crankshaft seal. The Orbital Nonroad to be tamper resistant to protect the quantifying the degree to which the Products Study concluded that these emissions performance of the product. materials tested reflect those in the problems would likely cause: (1) Oxides However, this also means that if the current fleet. Growth Energy contends that may dislodge and damage the nonroad product operates poorly on that the DOE Pilot Study showed no engine; (2) the loss of intended fuel-air E15, it will continue to do so, which material compatibility issues. However, metering and control; and (3) fuel may increase emissions and shorten its several commenters note that the DOE leakage. life. Pilot Study’s authors point out that The Briggs and Stratton Study materials compatibility issues ‘‘were not presented results of a completed E. Conclusion specifically characterized as part of this evaluation of the impacts of E20 on study.’’ 114 The Agency’s review of the EPA-certified engines through soaking It is the burden of the applicant to DOE Pilot Study is that the main focus fuel components. After six months of demonstrate that any new fuel or fuel was to measure emissions changes from soaking, the study showed 5–10% additive that requires a waiver under the use of various fuels in SNREs over greater swelling and mass gained by CAA section 211(f)(4) of the a test procedure that lasted 125–500 gaskets and rubber parts for parts soaked substantially similar prohibition in CAA hours (or 10–40 days at 12.5 hours/day). in E20 compared to E0. The epoxy for section 211(f)(1) will not cause or Materials compatibility issues are the Welsch plug, a plug placed over the contribute to the failure of nonroad mostly seen over a length of time of progression holes in the carburetor engines and nonroad vehicles to meet unused fuel sitting in the fuel tank and body, dissolved in E20 and coated the their emissions standards over the in the fuel system, and this was not a plug. In a running engine, that could engines’ or vehicles’ full useful life. focus of the study. For the Minnesota result in the plug falling out and fuel Growth Energy has not made this Compatibility Study, there was minimal leaking from the carburetor, resulting in demonstration as Growth Energy has not if any applicable information for the a potential increase in evaporative provided sufficient data and vast range of nonroad products and no emissions. The inlet needle seats and information to broadly assess the information to correlate the materials the fuel cap gaskets swelled, which performance of all nonroad products tested with those in the in-use fleet of could also lead to increases in while using E15. Additionally, based on nonroad products. evaporative emissions. Garden tractor our own engineering judgment after Due to the unique chemical and fuel tank caps and seals ‘‘exhibited review of all available data for nonroad physical characteristics of ethanol, in extreme swelling’’ in E20 versus E0.115 products, we find that there are comparison to gasoline, one must be Given the available information to emissions-related concerns with the use careful in selecting materials for use in suggest a cause for materials of E15 in nonroad products, particularly motor vehicles and nonroad products to compatibility concerns that could lead regarding long-term exhaust and ensure long-term materials to elevated exhaust and evaporative evaporative emissions (durability) compatibility. Otherwise, materials emissions, we do not believe the impacts and materials compatibility incompatibility can lead to long-term information provided by Growth Energy issues. Therefore, the Agency has exhaust and evaporative emission adequate addresses materials concluded that it cannot grant a waiver increases that may or may not be compatibility for E15 use in nonroad for the use of E15 in nonroad products detected in certification and compliance products. based on existing data. testing, as well as product operability problems that could lead to product 6. Driveability and Operability 116 The DOE Study of February 2009 on Small SI tampering and premature engine failure. E15 will introduce a leaner A/F ratio engines includes information in Table 3.5: A Class Two studies cited by commenters I consumer engine was described to lose power at to the engine compared to motor vehicle full load on E20 however did run well if more fuel serve to highlight the importance of was put into the engine. A Class IV engine was materials compatibility with gasoline- 115 It was not clear exactly what parts were used found to have 25% higher idle speed due to the fact for the fuel soaking tests. It was stated in the study that the extra oxygen in the fuel improves 114 EPA Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– that a 6.0 HP Quantum engine was used, combustion and hence speed increases (they do not 0335: ‘‘Effects of Intermediate Ethanol blends on specifically ‘‘engine 123K02 0239E1 04061458 was have speed governors). A Class IV 2-stroke Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, used for all testing except exhaust emissions.’’ handheld engine seized on E20. A Class I Report 1,’’ October 2008, page 3–12, NREL/TP–540– However, it was stated that ‘‘parts’’ were soaked, not commercial engine showed erratic operation at light 43543 and ORNL/TM–2008/117. an engine. loads due to unstable governor.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

VI. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engines and VIII. E12 Midlevel Gasoline-Ethanol levels of ethanol in gasoline in the Vehicles Blends national market today. ADM used their Given its limited market, heavy-duty On June 7, 2010, EPA received a letter survey results to attempt to evaluate gasoline engines and vehicles have not from Archer Daniels Midland Company expected emissions impacts and other been the focus of test programs and (ADM) to consider, within the context of related issues from using E12 and to efforts to assess the potential impacts of Growth Energy’s E15 waiver conclude that the E12 supposedly now E15 on such engines and vehicles. From application, allowing 12 vol% ethanol in use in the national gasoline market a historical perspective, the in gasoline (E12) for the introduction was not resulting in any motor vehicle introduction of heavy-duty gasoline into commerce for all motor vehicles.117 problems that adversely affect engine and vehicle technology has ADM also requested that EPA modify its emissions. ADM also argued that EPA lagged behind the implementation of ‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule already effectively allows E12 in the similar technology for light-duty motor under CAA section 211(f)(1) and allow marketplace through previously issued vehicles. Similarly, emissions standards higher oxygen content, thus allowing for letters and its models. In making all of for this sector have lagged behind those introduction of E12 into the marketplace these arguments, it appears that ADM of light-duty motor vehicles, such that without need for a waiver. On July 20, was essentially attempting to address current heavy-duty gasoline engine 2010, ADM sent a Technical Support the four factors discussed in Section III standards remain comparable, from a Document (TSD) in support of these that EPA analyzes when reviewing a technology standpoint, to older light- requests (‘‘ADM TSD’’).118 On September waiver request. In other words, ADM duty motor vehicle standards (for 3, 2010 API submitted its response to was apparently making these arguments example Tier 1 emissions standards). both ADM documents, arguing that in an attempt to assert that E12 satisfies Consequently, we believe the concerns ADM’s analysis contained several these four factors so EPA should grant raised for MY2000 and older motor critical flaws and suggested that EPA a waiver for E12. EPA generally vehicles are also applicable to the not approve E12 to be introduced into disagrees with ADM’s conclusions and majority of the in-use fleet of heavy- commerce for all motor vehicles.119 On addresses each of these arguments, as duty gasoline engines and vehicles. September 17 and 24, 2010, the Alliance well as the comments received on the Additionally, Growth Energy did not and AllSAFE submitted their own ADM submission, below. responses with similar arguments.120 provide any data specifically addressing A. First Argument: E12 Is Already Used how heavy-duty gasoline engines and We are treating all of these letters as late comments received on the Growth in the Marketplace With No Reported vehicles’ emissions and emissions Problems control systems would be affected by Energy waiver request application. The the use of E15 over the full useful life following sections address ADM’s 1. ADM Argument of these vehicles and engines. Thus, a request and supporting rationale,121 the waiver is not being granted for these responses received, and our own In its request, ADM argued that based engines and vehicles. analysis regarding ADM’s request. on surveys and studies, E12 is already In the ADM TSD, ADM made several in significant use and there have not VII. Highway and Off-Highway arguments for its requests that EPA been any problems reported in-use or in Motorcycles grant a CAA section 211(f)(4) waiver for the studies. To support their argument, Growth Energy did not provide any E12 and that EPA amend its CAA ADM relied on fuel sample survey data data addressing how motorcycle section 211(f)(1) ‘‘substantially similar’’ from ‘‘selected years and seasons’’ from emissions and emissions control interpretive rule and consider E12 the seasonal Northrop Grumman motor systems would specifically be affected ‘‘substantially similar’’ to its certification gasoline surveys.122 ADM suggested that by the use of E15 over their full useful fuels. For example, in making its these data provide ‘‘significant and life. Like heavy-duty gasoline engines argument for granting an E12 waiver, substantial compelling data and vehicles, highway and off-highway ADM presented some new data, such as demonstrating that ethanol blends motorcycles have not been the focus of evaluations of fuel survey data regarding approaching E12 are currently available test programs to evaluate the effects on and are being used in the United States these motorcycles while using E15. 117 Woertz, P.A. Letter to Lisa P. Jackson. 7 June without incident’’.123 Additionally, While some newer highway and off- 2010. See Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– ADM argues that around 30% of 13999. samples reported in select years and highway motorcycles incorporate some 118 Technical Support Document For Archer of the advanced fuel system and Daniles Midland Company’s Request for Approval seasons from 1990 through 2009 have emissions control technologies that are of Ethanol-Gasoline Blends of Up To And Including denatured ethanol contents greater than found in passenger cars and light-duty 12 Percent Ethanol, July 20, 2010, EPA Docket 10.5 vol%. ADM specifically cites the #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–13995. summer 2008 Northrop Grumman motor trucks, such as electronic fuel injection 119 CRC Project No. CM–136–09–1B, EPA Docket and catalysts, many do not have the #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211–14008. gasoline survey data as showing that advanced fuel trim control of today’s 120 See Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0211– over 70% of samples had denatured motor vehicles that would allow them to 14005.1, p.7 and Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– ethanol contents of higher than 10 vol% adjust to the higher oxygen content of 0211–14004.1, p.3. ethanol and approximately 30% of 121 E15. More importantly, older highway In the ADM TSD, ADM in many cases uses samples had 11 vol% or greater data and other information either submitted as part 124 and off-highway motorcycles do not of the Growth Energy application or addressed by denatured ethanol contents. have any of these technologies (i.e., EPA above in Section IV for ADM’s assertions 2. API, AllSAFE, and Alliance their engines are carbureted and/or they regarding E12. For example, ADM uses data and information from the Growth Energy application to Comments do not have catalysts) and are therefore discuss materials compatibility issues for E12. This more on par with MY2000 and older data and information has already been evaluated Commenters pointed out that ADM’s motor vehicles and light-duty trucks. and addressed by EPA in the appropriate sections data is based upon measurements of Consequently, we believe the discussion above. This Section VIII will only address new data and information submitted regarding E12 in the for MY2000 and older motor vehicles ADM, API, AllSAFE and Alliance submissions that 122 See ADM TSD, 5–8. applies to highway and off-highway were not previously submitted elsewhere as part of 123 See ADM TSD, 5. motorcycles. Growth Energy’s waiver request application. 124 See ADM TSD, 5–8.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68139

‘‘denatured’’ ethanol 125 and that the contents were routinely in the 3. EPA Analysis Northrop Grumman data is actually marketplace. based upon tests which measure actual Commenters also argued that ADM The Agency evaluated the Northrop ethanol content. Commenters also failed to provide any peer-reviewed test Grumman data and found that the actual pointed out that one possible reason for program or published test data that number of samples that had measured the higher ethanol contents in ADM’s shows that the possible prevalence of ethanol contents greater than 10 vol% analysis may have been an attempt to E12 in some areas did not result in ethanol and 11 vol% ethanol were very take the volume of the denaturant into substantial mechanical failures. API and low. For example, Figure VIII.A.3–1 the Alliance also analyzed the Northrop account for each fuel sample. API stated below shows the distribution of all fuel Grumman data and other datasets and that this may mislead the reader since samples included in the summer 2008 concluded that ADM’s conclusions Northrop Grumman motor gasoline the pertinent data is actual ethanol or about the prevalence of E12 in the neat ethanol content and inclusion of an survey that had greater than 5 vol% marketplace were not accurate. In its ethanol.126 assumed denaturant was inappropriate submission, AllSAFE aligned itself with in making the case that higher ethanol these comments.

Figure VIII.A.3–1 shows that less than equipment used at terminals to blend would have resulted in some samples 0.5% of samples in the summer of 2008 ethanol and other additives into measuring as high as 13 vol% or 14 had measured ethanol concentrations gasoline is extremely precise, and our vol%. Such levels have not been seen. greater than 11 vol% and only understanding and experience is that These results are also similar to approximately 2% of samples had the industry practice is to be as close to results using other data sources. Figure measured ethanol concentrations greater 10% as possible, there is no reason to VIII.A.3.–2 shows the distribution of than 10.5 vol%. Due to inherent believe that ethanol levels greater than variability of the ASTM test procedure 10 vol% have been experienced in-use ethanol content measurements for the used to measure the concentration of except in the infrequent circumstances fuel samples containing greater than 5 ethanol in gasoline (both within the of blending equipment failure. vol% ethanol collected by the Alliance same testing laboratories and between Recognizing the variability in the ASTM from 2007 through 2009. Again, these different laboratories), the observed test method results, the Northrop data show the expected distribution of distribution in measurements of ethanol Grumman data actually confirms this to measurements around 10 vol% that one content is precisely what one would be the case. Had ethanol concentrations would expect for fuels actually expect to see for fuel samples that actually been at 11 vol% or even 12 containing 10 vol% ethanol using a test actually contained no more than 10 vol% in practice, then the variability method with significant variability. vol% ethanol. Since the blending associated with test measurements

125 By regulation denaturant is required to be 126 We chose to look at only samples that added to fuel-grade ethanol in order that it not be contained greater than 5 vol% ethanol because sold for non-fuel purposes such as the production those appear to be the samples included in ADM’s of beverages. analysis. See ADM TSD, page 8.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.011 68140 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Figure VIII.A.3–3 shows data for obtained from a robust survey program around 10 vol% as the Northrop summer 2008 from the RFG Survey designed to estimate RFG fuel Grumman and Alliance data. Program. Although these data do not parameters. As can be seen, this data represent the nation as a whole, they are shows the same consistent distribution

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 EN04NO10.012 EN04NO10.013 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68141

As highlighted by API, we believe one gasoline-ethanol blends containing original ethanol waiver and the data possible reason for the slightly lower greater than 10 vol% ethanol. ADM sites discussed above shows that, in practice, results from our analysis and ADM’s three letters from EPA in support of it is only rarely (and impermissibly) analysis is that an attempt may have their argument.128 For the first two used above 10 vol%.130 been made to take the volume of the letters, ADM’s argument was based on C. Third Argument: EPA’s Models Allow denaturant into account for each fuel EPA-stated oxygen contents for average Greater Than 10 Vol% Ethanol sample. Northrop Grumman reports E10 gasoline-ethanol blends or ethanol content as vol% measured with maximum oxygen contents for E10 1. ADM Argument ASTM 5599; however, ADM describes blends. With respect to the third letter, ADM further argued that E12 is their analysis in terms of denatured ADM argued that by allowing implicitly allowed by virtue of the ethanol. Adjusting the ethanol content contaminant levels of MTBE in gasoline oxygen limits allowed in the Complex of samples to include denaturant would for ethanol blending, EPA was Model. ADM argued that since the shift the distribution and show a higher endorsing the intentional ‘‘stacking’’ of Complex Model 131 provides valid percentage of fuels containing greater 10 vol% ethanol on top of gasoline with emissions results for a fuel with up to than 10 vol% ethanol.127 However, the up to 2 vol% MTBE, thus allowing for 4% oxygen by weight (wt%), and E12 is original waiver for E10 allowed for 10 higher oxygen levels equivalent or ‘‘close’’ to this weight percent limit since vol% anhydrous ethanol and testing of nearly equivalent to E12. ADM then it represents 4.2 wt% to 4.4 wt% in fuel samples as mentioned above argues that the letters essentially were gasoline, EPA, through this model, has indicate that the full 10 vol% ethanol is an EPA allowance to utilize up to 11.7 effectively already allowed use of E12. actually utilized in making E10. We vol% ethanol. 2. API and Alliance Comments therefore believe this would be an 2. EPA Analysis inappropriate adjustment of ethanol API pointed out that the 4 wt% content that may be misleading since ADM inappropriately concludes that oxygen limit was meant as a range limit, denaturant is typically unleaded EPA was approving ethanol content taking into account the variability of gasoline and therefore would not be above 10 vol% in the first two letters. densities that exist in gasoline across expected to have an adverse effect on These two letters merely stated various the nation. API states that ‘‘ADM * * * motor vehicles and nonroad products. oxygen weight contents as estimates of twists the logic stated by EPA in 1994 Additionally, ADM’s analysis of the the weight percent of oxygen in a 10 for increasing the high end of the valid historical data was not complete. The vol% gasoline-ethanol blend, depending range for fuel oxygen content to 4.0 wt% data selected from the Northrop upon the density of the gasoline into in the RFG Complex Model. ADM Grumman surveys are limited; for which the ethanol was added.129 asserts that this action by EPA meant example, the 2005 survey uses only 173 Neither EPA letter states, nor was there that it had ‘already authorized’ the use fuel samples and appeared to ignore any intention conveyed, that it was legal of E11.7 vol% gasoline-ethanol blends. other fuel samples in the same survey to blend ethanol above 10 vol% into This interpretation confuses the issue of for the same year and also used only unleaded gasoline. weight percent oxygen in the final selected seasons and years for their In the third letter, EPA had gasoline-ethanol blend versus the arguments. When we look at all the data recognized how ubiquitous MTBE had volume percentage of ethanol added to available, including all the Northrop become in the fungible gasoline the fuel. ADM acknowledges that the Grumman data, the Alliance data, and distribution system, including in density of the base hydrocarbon blend the RFG survey data, in the context of pipelines and terminals. The allowance stock (BOB) is critically important in the the ASTM test method variability, we for very small amounts of MTBE in weight percent calculation, but then conclude that it supports a conclusion gasoline to be blended with ethanol (so- totally ignores it. To translate from 4.0 that in-use ethanol levels have not called ‘‘stacking’’) was allowed to wt% oxygen to 11.7 vol%, ADM had to exceeded 10 vol%. Otherwise address the ubiquitous presence of have made an assumption regarding the measurements would have been MTBE in some fungible systems at that BOB density, but it fails to provide any considerably higher. time, making it a low-level contaminant information as to the nature and/or basis Furthermore, even if one were to for gasoline used in E10. Typically the for it.’’ 132 accept ADM’s argument that there have MTBE was in trace amounts in gasoline API goes on to state that ‘‘EPA’s 1994 been isolated geographically or and was not close to 2 vol%. The letter ruling did not ‘authorize’ the use of temporally oriented situations where recognized this as a contaminant so that E11.7, it simply recognized the range of gasoline-ethanol blends up to and it would not be unlawful to add up to BOB densities that exist in commerce including E12 were in common use for 10 vol% ethanol into the base gasoline. and allowed for the resulting wt% a period of time, ADM has not provided Refiners were not permitted to oxygen that might be observed with E10. a method of determining or measuring intentionally produce a gasoline using 2 In fact, a careful reading of the 1994 whether problems occurred. vol% MTBE and 10 vol% ethanol. EPA regulatory text reveals that there is not has not stated that it is permissible to one shred of evidence that even hints at B. Second Argument: EPA Effectively utilize over 10 vol% ethanol under the the possible consideration (in 1994) of Allows Gasoline-Ethanol Blends Greater Than E10 128 See ADM TSD, 9. 130 Although very small amounts of oxygen were 1. ADM Argument 129 Gasoline densities typically vary seasonally added when trace contaminant amounts of MTBE and geographically to account for varying were allowed when such gasoline had been ADM also argued that EPA guidance performance requirements such as variations in inadvertently added to 10 vol% ethanol, MTBE at various times in the late 1980s and requirements for cold and hot weather or high- would, in any event, have different effects on altitude regions. The oxygen content of 10 vol% vehicles/engines in that it is a less polar molecule 1993 indicated EPA’s allowance for ethanol in gasoline varies as the density of the resulting in different impacts regarding materials gasoline into which it is blended varies. For compatibility. 127 Since most ethanol is denatured with example, when 10 vol% ethanol is added to a 131 The ‘‘Complex Model’’ is a regulatory model hydrocarbon mixtures, typically gasoline itself, EPA relatively low-density winter gasoline, the oxygen used to predict the emissions effects of various is unaware how the denaturant content could have content from the ethanol will be relatively heavier gasoline properties, including oxygen content. been determined if the samples tested were samples than when the same ethanol is added to a heavier 132 See API Comment, Docket #EPA–HQ–OAR– of gasoline-ethanol blends. or higher density summertime fuel. 2009–0211–14000.1, 2.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68142 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

gasoline-ethanol blends containing conclusions regarding the emissions compared E12 to E10 where the greater than 10 vol%.’’ The Alliance effects of E12. For example, ADM tried appropriate comparison for meeting the specifically aligned itself with the using the Complex Model to predict criteria of a waiver would be comments on this issue from API. emissions for E12 based upon changes appropriately made between E12 and in properties if 12 vol% ethanol was E0. Most importantly, the data 3. EPA Analysis added to gasoline. presented by ADM did not present any We do not agree with ADM’s data on which a conclusion regarding argument. The 4 wt% oxygen limit in 2. API, AllSAFE and Alliance Comments the long-term emissions effects of E12 the Complex Model was meant as a could be based. ADM provides no range limit on the weight of oxygen in API rejected the ADM arguments. API additional information on E12 that the gasoline-ethanol blend, taking into stated that ADM’s arguments were would change our evaluation regarding account the variability of densities that erroneous because the studies cited a waiver for gasoline-ethanol blends exist in gasoline across the nation. It did were misinterpreted, already presented over 10 vol%. not change the 10 vol% limit for ethanol in the Growth Energy application, or Thus, EPA concludes, after review of use in gasoline. It recognized that the based upon flawed survey data. API also the information provided by ADM, and same volume percent of ethanol may pointed out that the Complex Model, based on the data received regarding the lead to different weight percents of used for predicting emissions, is based E15 waiver request, that there is oxygen in the gasoline-ethanol blend, only upon 1990 technology motor insufficient basis to support the based on the density of the gasoline. vehicles and that ADM’s emissions introduction into commerce of E12 for The Complex Model is designed to predictions made assumptions about use in all motor vehicles and nonroad allow a valid emissions projection for fuel composition after the addition of 12 products. Specifically, our analysis for purposes of the Reformulated Gasoline vol% ethanol that were not supported gasoline-ethanol blends up to 15 vol% program for the full range of ethanol and by any analysis. AllSAFE also pointed ethanol has concluded that there is other blends of fuels that lawfully could out that the ADM TSD attempted to insufficient data or evidence to grant a be produced. It did not change any of extrapolate the effects of E12 based on waiver beyond MY2007 and newer the requirements that fuels otherwise the effects of lower levels of ethanol light-duty motor vehicles. ADM did not had to meet to be a lawful fuel. content found in gasoline-ethanol provide any data regarding motor Specifically, it did not change the blends, and argued that this is not an vehicle exhaust or evaporative requirement that gasoline-ethanol adequate substitute for the actual testing emissions using a 12 vol% gasoline- blends could only be lawfully produced of E12. ethanol blended fuel. Also, EPA is not at no higher than 10 vol% ethanol. The 3. EPA response aware of any test data using 12 vol% range of the Complex Model would then To address ADM’s arguments, we gasoline-ethanol blends that would potentially cover the range of wt% refer to our discussion of immediate and support this request beyond MY2007 oxygen that could occur for a finished long-term (durability) exhaust and and newer light-duty motor vehicles. gasoline-ethanol blend that had no more evaporative emissions impacts, EPA has determined that there is an than 10 vol% ethanol. materials compatibility and driveability inadequate demonstration for an E12 D. Fourth Argument: ADM’s Argument found in Section IV regarding the waiver application for MY2000 and for an E12 Waiver Growth Energy waiver application. older motor vehicles, heavy-duty EPA’s analysis above regarding the gasoline engines and vehicles, highway 1. ADM Argument Growth Energy waiver request and off-highway motorcycles and for all ADM reiterated its support of the application covers the range of gasoline- nonroad products. EPA is deferring a Growth Energy request and argued that ethanol blends that include blends decision for MY2001–2006 motor E12 should be considered under the above 10 vol% and no more than 15 vehicles. Growth Energy waiver application and vol% ethanol. Additionally, we note E. Fifth Argument: E12 is ‘‘Substantially that a waiver should be granted for E12. that ADM’s analysis of survey data is Similar’’ to Certification Fuel The primary basis of ADM’s argument flawed in that EPA’s analysis indicates relied on studies and materials that had that there is no evidence of E12 in the 1. ADM Argument already been submitted under the marketplace today. ADM also does not ADM’s final argument is that since Growth Energy waiver request present any process by which any E10 is used as an aging fuel for application. effects of E12 in the marketplace could evaporative emissions service ADM provided reference to a number be evaluated. EPA agrees with API’s accumulation purposes in EPA’s of engineering papers which noted the comments regarding the use of the emissions certification regulations, E10 similarity in effects on elastomers and Complex Model to evaluate projected is a ‘‘certification fuel’’ for purposes of plastics for E12 when compared to E10. emissions changes; such use is the CAA section 211(f)(1) ‘‘substantially ADM also made many arguments which inappropriate for a waiver decision. similar’’ determination. ADM further were essentially the same as the ADM’s arguments are based upon asserts that E12 is ‘‘substantially similar’’ arguments made for the Growth Energy flawed use of the survey data, to E10 based on its chemical and application regarding exhaust and inappropriately used models, issues and physical properties, so EPA should evaporative emissions effects, materials data already discussed within the revise its ‘‘substantially similar’’ compatibility and driveability/ context of the Growth Energy interpretive rule and increase the operability on motor vehicles and small application, interpolation of data and ‘‘substantially similar’’ oxygen limit engines. These studies, and the effects from studies that did not from 2.7% by weight to 4.25% by arguments, essentially mirrored specifically investigate the effects of weight. arguments already considered in the E12, or studies that included context of the Growth Energy insufficient data to make the 2. API, AllSAFE and Alliance application discussed above. conclusions ADM stated. Furthermore, Comments ADM also utilized the survey data it many of ADM’s arguments involving The Alliance commented that E10 is had presented to attempt to make interpolation or comparison of data only used for certification purposes

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68143

regarding the aging of motor vehicles for testing for certification purposes is within the context of the Growth Energy evaporative emissions certification; E10 conducted using an E0 fuel. Thus, E10 E15 waiver request application, as is not used in any of the actual plays a limited role in the certification discussed above in Section IV. For emissions certification tests. The process for a limited subset of motor MY2000 and older motor vehicles, Alliance points out that ‘‘ADM bases vehicles. In contrast, E0 has been and heavy-duty gasoline engines and this argument on the fact that EPA remains the primary fuel used in vehicles, highway and off-highway requires manufacturers to use the certification since it is the actual test motorcycles, and all nonroad products, highest gasoline-ethanol blend for fuel for all of the actual emissions EPA has concluded that there is evaporative system durability aging in standards testing required for insufficient evidence to grant a waiver. the certification process. Unfortunately, certification. Thus, it would be EPA is deferring a decision for ADM either misunderstands or has inappropriate to consider E10 a MY2001–2006 light-duty motor misrepresented the vehicle certification ‘‘certification fuel’’ for comparison with vehicles. process. Importantly, this particular E12 in making a ‘‘substantially similar’’ EPA has also concluded that ADM has requirement applies only to evaporative determination as requested by ADM. not made a demonstration that E12 is emissions system aging; it has no The proper comparison is between E12 ‘‘substantially similar’’ to certification connection to exhaust emission testing.’’ and E0. fuels, and EPA declines to amend its The Alliance concludes that ‘‘ADM’s In making a ‘‘substantially similar’’ ‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule assertion that this fuel qualifies as a determination, EPA generally evaluates to include E12. certification fuel for the entire fleet is the physical and chemical composition simply untrue.’’ 133 AllSAFE’s of the new fuel or fuel additive against IX. Legal Issues Arising in This Partial comments essentially agree with this our certification fuels to determine the Waiver Decision interpretation, noting that ‘‘consistent emissions effects of that new fuel or fuel A. Partial Waiver and Conditions of E15 with the focus of [section] 211(f)(4) on additive. Here, we find that E12 is not Use emissions control devices, Congress ‘‘substantially similar’’ physically or As stated in EPA’s notice for comment must necessarily have intended chemically to E0. As is noted in today’s on the E15 waiver request, a possible certification fuels to refer to emissions Decision, E12 has a substantially higher certification fuels, not mileage oxygen content than E0, and the polarity outcome after the Agency reviewed the accumulation fuels.’’ API also agreed of the ethanol molecule results in record of scientific and technical that the ADM submission did not various properties different from those information may be an indication that a support a conclusion that E12 is of E0, such as differences in polarity fuel up to E15 could meet the criteria for substantially similar to certification fuel and volatility. Such differences may a waiver for some vehicles and engines and pointed out that ADM presents no affect emissions and the durability of but not for others. In this context, the emissions data on E12. motor vehicle components. Consistent Agency noted that one interpretation of with our prior revisions to the section 211(f)(4) is that the waiver 3. EPA Response ‘‘substantially similar’’ definition, and request could only be approved for that In evaluating ADM’s request to revise prior ‘‘substantially similar’’ subset of vehicles or engines for which the definition of ‘‘substantially similar,’’ determinations, we would also consider testing supports its use. We also stated EPA considered all certification fuels test data on the emissions effects of E12, that such a partial waiver for use of E15 used for the broad range of motor as with a waiver request, in making this may be appropriate if adequate vehicle model years, not just the current determination.134 For E12, we would measures or conditions could be model years, and considered both the evaluate whether the higher oxygen implemented to ensure its proper use. exhaust and the evaporative emissions content would produce similar emission EPA invited comment on the legal certification procedures. This is because results as E0 under the certification aspects regarding a waiver that the ‘‘substantially similar’’ definition process. ADM provided no such data restricted the use of E15 to a subset of affects roughly 300 million motor and we are not aware of any test data vehicles or engines, and the potential vehicles which represent thousands of using 12 vol% ethanol blends. Based on ability to impose conditions on such a different designs by a wide range of the physical and chemical differences waiver. manufacturers from around the world. between E12 and E0, and the absence of We received a number of comments These motor vehicles are in a a showing of the emissions impacts expressing opposition to a partial transportation system and marketplace when using E12 versus using E0, EPA waiver based on a lack of legal authority that affects the entire country. Based on finds no basis for revising the under section 211(f)(4). Some of those these considerations, EPA does not ‘‘substantially similar’’ definition to same commenters, as well as others, believe that E10 qualifies as a include E12. also stated that EPA should first conduct ‘‘certification fuel’’ in the manner and finalize a rulemaking under section F. EPA Conclusion asserted by ADM such that it would be 211(c) to mitigate the potential for appropriate to compare E12 to E10 in For MY2007 and newer light-duty misfueling and limit the types of mobile determining whether E12 is motor vehicles, EPA has concluded that sources for which E15 may be used. ‘‘substantially similar’’ for a CAA section there is an adequate demonstration for Many commenters pointed to the 211(f)(1) determination. E10 is only an E12 partial and conditional waiver, language in section 211(f)(4) and argued used in one part of the certification that the use of the word ‘‘any’’ in the process for certain newer motor 134 For example, when EPA revised its phrase ‘‘will not cause or contribute to substantially similar definition in 1991 under a failure of any emission control device vehicles. Specifically, E10 is only used which the allowable oxygen content was raised to in the mileage-accumulation or aging 2.7% by weight for certain alcohol and ether or system (over the useful life of the portion of certification for evaporative oxygenates (56 FR 5352, February 11, 1991), there motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, emissions for Tier 2 vehicles. However, was a long history of use and a large database to nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in draw from regarding the use of oxygenates at these which such device or system is used) to all exhaust and evaporative emissions levels. As discussed above, EPA does not believe the data shows that E12 has, in fact, been routinely achieve compliance by the vehicle or 133 See Alliance Comments Docket #EPA–HQ– used in the marketplace and independent testing on engine,’’ means that if the waiver OAR–2009–0211–14004.1, 9–10. E12 is not available. applicant has not established that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68144 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

use of E15 meets the waiver criteria for for a partial waiver is a permissible ‘‘the requirements of section 211(f)(4) any type of motor vehicle or nonroad interpretation of CAA authority, but that are met.’’ 136 This commenter also points product, then the waiver must be the evidence suggests a waiver for all to the legislative history of section denied. Noting the statutory provision’s vehicles and engines on the road today 211(f)(4) which makes clear that EPA use of the word ‘‘any,’’ commenters is appropriate. has authority to grant conditional asserted that should E15 cause or We also received comment noting that waivers. The 1977 Senate Report contribute to a failure of any emission the prohibition in section 211(f)(1) only regarding section 211(f)(4) states: ‘‘The control device to achieve compliance applies to the use of any fuel or fuel Administrator’s waiver may be under under any single circumstance, then the additive in light-duty motor vehicles, such conditions, or in regard to such waiver applicant has not met the waiver indicating that the grant of the waiver of concentrations, as he deems appropriate criteria and the waiver must be denied this prohibition under section 211(f)(4) consistent with the intent of this in its entirety. Another commenter is not dependent on findings with section.’’ Senate Report No. 95–125, suggested that the word ‘‘any’’ modifies respect to nonroad products. The 95th Congress, 1st Session 91 (1977), ‘‘emission control device’’ and that if an commenter further noted that although pg 91. emission control device for any of the EPA has the authority and discretion to The issue before EPA is whether it is types of vehicles in the parenthetical look at the effect of a fuel or fuel reasonable to interpret section 211(f)(4) language in section 211(f)(4) is additive on nonroad products (in the as authorizing EPA to grant a partial implicated, then the waiver must be context of examining impacts on motor waiver under appropriate conditions, as denied. Still another commenter vehicles), nothing in the statute or in today’s decision. If Congress spoke suggested that ‘‘In amending section legislative history indicates that the directly to the issue and clearly 211(f)(4) in 2007 with enactment of the amendment to section 211(f)(4) sought intended to not allow such a partial Energy Independence and Security Act, to limit EPA’s discretion for issuing a waiver, then EPA could not do so. Congress expanded the types of devices waiver for motor vehicles. In light of However, if Congress did not indicate a for which an applicant must establish Congress’ decision in the Energy precise intention on this issue, and we that a fuel or fuel additive will not cause Independence and Security Act of 2007 believe that section 211(f)(4) is or contribute to a failure while retaining to substantially increase the Renewable ambiguous in this regard, then a partial the prohibition of causing or Fuel Standard Program’s volume waiver with appropriate conditions contributing to the failure of ‘any’ mandates, this commenter suggests that would be authorized if it is a reasonable device. With the expansion of section reading the word ‘‘any’’ in section interpretation. EPA has considered the 211(f)(4), EPA is directed to only 211(f)(4) as amended by the 2007 Energy text and structure of this provision, as approve a waiver if all nonroad and on- Act to apply to anything more than any well as the companion prohibition in road vehicles and engines would not be emission control systems on the subset section 211(f)(1), and believes it is a adversely affected.’’ Commenters of motor vehicles would be at odds with reasonable to interpret section 211(f)(4) asserted that the provision effectively congressional intent. as providing EPA with discretion to required that there should be a ‘‘general Regarding EPA’s authority to impose issue this partial waiver with purpose’’ fuel. The commenters noted conditions on a waiver, we received appropriate conditions. that EPA would contradict this direction comment stating that EPA has the It is important to put section 211(f)(4) if it failed to address impacts on any authority to grant waivers subject to a in its statutory context. The prohibition portion of the vehicles or engines. broad range of conditions that ensure in section 211(f)(1) and the waiver Essentially, the implication of all of that the fuel or fuel additive will not provision in section 211(f)(4) should be these assertions is that EPA can only cause or contribute to the failure of any seen as parallel and complementary grant a waiver if all emission control emission control device or system. One provisions. Together they provide two devices in all types of mobile sources commenter pointed to four of the eleven alternative paths for entry into listed in the statute will not be waivers EPA has issued since 1977 that commerce of fuels and fuels additives. adversely impacted by E15. have placed conditions on a waiver.135 The section 211(f)(1) prohibition allows We also received several comments In EPA’s first waiver decision in 1978, fuels or fuel additives to be introduced suggesting that if EPA desires to grant a the Agency discussed its authority to into commerce as long as they are partial waiver, it must first proceed grant conditional waivers, noting that it substantially similar to fuel used to under section 211(c) with a separate and may grant a waiver ‘‘conditioned on certify compliance with emissions full rulemaking to analyze the costs, time or other limitations,’’ so long as standards, and the section 211(f)(4) benefits, necessary lead time, and the waiver provision allows fuels or technological feasibility of a partial 135 See Sun Petroleum Products Co.; Conditional additives to be introduced into waiver. The commenters stated that this Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 0–5.5% methanol/TBA, 44 FR 37,074 (June 25, 1979); commerce if they will not cause or rulemaking should also include an E.I.DuPont de Nemours & Co.; Conditional Grant of contribute to motor vehicles and analysis of the partial prohibition and Application for Fuel Waiver for 5% methanol/2% nonroad products to fail to meet their controls on the use of E15 and include cosolvent alcohols, specified corrosion inhibitor, applicable emissions standards. EPA’s detailed regulatory requirements to Decision Document, 51 FR 39,800 (Oct. 31, 1986); authority to issue a waiver is ensure adequate control measures and Texas Methanol Corp.; Conditional Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for Octamix (5% coextensive with the scope of the to mitigate misfueling with E15. methanol, 2.5% cosolvent alcohols, specified prohibition—whatever is prohibited can Commenters stated that the inclusion in corrosion inhibitor), Decision Document, 53 FR also be the subject of a waiver if the section 211(f)(4) of 270 days by which 33,846 (Sept. 1, 1988); Sun Refining and Marketing criteria for granting a waiver are met. In EPA must act does not allow enough Co.; Conditional Grant of Application for Fuel Waiver for 15% MTBE, Decision Document, 53 FR addition, the criteria for each provision time to address all the necessary 33,846 (Sept. 1, 1988). These conditions have taken have similar goals. They are aimed at marketing and other issues and thus various forms, from restrictions on the chemical providing flexibility to the fuel and fuel Congress could not have envisioned a composition and additive concentration of the additive industry by allowing a variety partial waiver. waiver fuel and requirements to meet ASTM and seasonal volatility standards, to specific testing Growth Energy and ACE stated that protocols and mandates that a fuel manufacturer 136 See Ethyl Corp., Denial of Application for Fuel the Agency has the authority to grant a take ‘‘all reasonable precautions’’ to guard against Waiver for MMT (1/16 and 1/32 gpg Mn), 43 FR partial waiver or that EPA’s authority unauthorized uses of the waiver fuel. 41,424 (Sept. 18, 1978).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68145

of fuels and fuel additives into E85 look to the certification fuel that provision as a general grant of waiver commerce, without limiting fuels and was used for the subset of vehicles that authority, encompassing both partial additives to those products that are were certified for use on E85. and total waivers, as long as the waiver identical to those used in the emissions In some limited cases, EPA has criteria are met. Second, the waiver certification process. This flexibility is approved a fuel additive as substantially criteria, like section 211(f)(1), have balanced by the goal of limiting the similar even when it is introduced into evolved over time. In 1977, the criteria potential reduction in emissions commerce for use in just one part of a were phrased as providing for a waiver benefits from the emissions standards, single vehicle manufacturer’s product when the fuel or fuel additive ‘‘will not even if some may occur because a fuel line. For example, where a fuel additive cause or contribute to a failure of any or fuel additive is not identical to is considered part of the emissions emission control device or system (over certification fuel or it leads to some control system for a vehicle model, and the useful life of any vehicle in which emissions increase but not a violation of is certified that way by the vehicle such device or system is used) to the standards. Together, these are manufacturer, then it is not a violation achieve compliance by the vehicle with indications that these provisions are of the substantially similar prohibition the emission standards to which it has intended to be parallel and for manufacturers of the fuel additive to been certified.’’ This was not modified complementary provisions. introduce it into commerce for use in in the 1990 amendments. In EISA 2007, The section 211(f)(1) prohibition has just that very small subset of vehicles as Congress amended the waiver criteria, evolved over time. Initially it was long as it is substantially similar to the providing for a waiver when the fuel or adopted in the 1977 amendments of the fuel additive used in the certification of fuel additive will not ‘‘cause or Act, and was much more limited in that vehicle model.137 In all of these contribute to a failure of any emission nature. It applied only to fuels or fuel cases, broad to narrow subsets of motor control device or system (over the useful additives for general use, and was also vehicles can be considered when life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle limited to fuels or fuel additives for use deciding whether the introduction of a engine, nonroad engine or nonroad in light-duty motor vehicles. EPA fuel or fuel additive for use by that vehicle in which such device or system interpreted this as applying to bulk fuels subset of motor vehicles is in is used) to achieve compliance by the or fuel additives for use in unleaded compliance with the prohibition. vehicle or engine with the emission gasoline. The prohibition did not apply EPA has in fact applied this construct standards to which it has been to other gasoline, or to diesel fuels or of this provision in all of its past waiver certified.’’ Congress uses the term ‘‘any’’ alternative fuels, or to fuel additives that decisions. EPA has previously said that in section 211(f)(4), as it does in several were not for bulk use. It was thus it is virtually impossible for an places in section 211(f)(1). One use of relevant only to the subset of motor applicant to demonstrate that a new fuel the term ‘‘any’’ was deleted in the 2007 vehicles designed to be operated on or fuel additive does not cause or amendments, when the parenthetical unleaded gasoline. contribute to any vehicle or engine was broadened to include consideration In 1990 Congress amended the failing to meet its emissions standards. of nonroad engines and nonroad prohibition and broadened it. It now Instead, EPA and the courts allow vehicles as well as motor vehicles. The applies to ‘‘any fuel or fuel additive for applicants to satisfy this statutory term ‘‘any,’’ however, has always been use by any person in motor vehicles provision through technical conclusions paired with the consistent use of the manufactured after model year 1974 based on appropriately designed test singular when referring to vehicles and which is not substantially similar to any programs and properly reasoned emissions control systems—‘‘the fuel or fuel additive utilized in the engineering judgment.138 For example, vehicle’’ and the emissions standards to certification of any model year 1975, or the sample size in these test programs which ‘‘it’’ is certified, and the ‘‘vehicle subsequent model year, vehicle or does not include all motor vehicles in in which such device or system is used.’’ ’’ engine. This extended the scope of the the current fleet; the sample size is Certainly Congress did not state that the prohibition to apply to all gasoline, to comprised of a statistically significant applicant has to demonstrate that the diesel fuel, and to other fuels such as sample of motor vehicles that, once fuel or fuel additive would not cause E85. However, the concept of applying tested, will enable the applicant to any devices or control systems, over the this prohibition based on the relevant extrapolate its findings and make its useful lives of the motor vehicles or subset of vehicles continues. For demonstration. EPA believes that this nonroad products in which they are example, a diesel fuel that is introduced practice of focusing on a relatively small used, to fail to achieve the emissions into commerce for diesel vehicles does but representative subset of motor standards to which they are certified. If not need to be substantially similar to vehicles does not violate the statutory Congress had stated that, then it would gasoline fuel or other fuels intended for use of the word ‘‘any’’ in this provision. be clear, as one commenter suggests, non-diesel vehicles. This is so even Since the waiver and the substantially that EPA should only grant a waiver if though Congress used the phrase similar provisions are parallel and all emission control devices in all the ‘‘substantially similar to any fuel or fuel complementary provisions, this clearly types of mobile sources listed would not additive utilized in the certification of raises the question of whether a waiver be impacted by the fuel. But Congress any * * * vehicles or engine’’ can also be based on a subset of motor did not state that.139 (emphasis supplied). Clearly Congress vehicles meeting the criteria for a did not intend the use of the term ‘‘any’’ waiver. EPA believes the text and 139 New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, (DC Cir. 2006) in the prohibition to always mean all construction of section 211(f)(4) concerned the use of the word ‘‘any’’ in a different motor vehicles or 100% of the motor provision in the Clean Air Act and does not lead vehicle fleet. Diesel fuel does not need supports this interpretation. to any different conclusion here. The Court found First, the term ‘‘waive’’ as used in that the statutory language, context, and legislative to be substantially similar to the fuel section 211(f)(4) is not modified in any intent of that provision required an expansive used in the certification of gasoline way. Normally one would read this meaning of the phrase ‘‘any physical change’’ in the vehicles, and E85 does not need to be definition of ‘‘modification’’ in CAA section substantially similar to fuel used in the 111(a)(4). EPA is also applying the term ‘‘any’’ in an 137 See 54 FR 4834 (November 22, 1989). expansive manner, but in the context of a subset of certification of diesel vehicles. For 138 See 44 FR 10530 (February 21, 1979); Motor motor vehicles. This takes into account the context, example, manufacturers who want to Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. et. al. v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385 (DC text, and purposes of both section 211(f)(1) and introduce E85 fuel or fuel additives for Cir. 1985). Continued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68146 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

Several aspects of section 211(f) thus vehicles and engines where it has been comment.’’ As discussed in detail in support the reasonableness of EPA’s shown not to cause violations of the Section II.B., EPA published notice of interpretation. The prohibition and the emissions standards, and may not be receipt of the waiver application on waiver provisions are properly seen as introduced into commerce for use in April 21, 2009 and provided the public parallel and complementary, and the other vehicles or engines. with an extended public comment prohibition properly can be evaluated in EPA recognizes that a partial waiver period of 90 days to submit comments terms of appropriate subsets of motor raises implementation issues regarding on the waiver application. EPA received vehicles, notwithstanding the use of the how to ensure that a fuel or fuel approximately 78,000 comments during term ‘‘any’’ to modify several parts of the additive is only introduced into the public comment period. prohibition. This clearly raises the commerce for use in the specified subset concept of also applying the waiver of motor vehicles. The discretion to Commenters have asked the Agency criteria to appropriate subsets of motor grant a partial waiver includes the for a second public comment period so vehicles. ‘‘Waive’’ is reasonably seen as authority and responsibility for that they may review and comment on a broad term that generally encompasses determining and imposing reasonable the testing data generated by the DOE a total and a partial waiver, as well as conditions that will allow for effective Catalyst Study. An additional comment the discretion to impose appropriate implementation of a partial waiver. In period is neither necessary nor required conditions. The criteria for a waiver also this case, EPA has conditioned the by law. EPA has continued to accept refer to ‘‘any’’ but the entire provision waiver on various actions that the fuel comments on the waiver application does not provide a clear indication that or fuel additive manufacturer must take. even after closure of the formal Congress intended to preclude The actions are all designed to help comment period, and has considered consideration of subsets of motor ensure that E15 is only used by the comments received even as late as early vehicles when considering an MY2007 and later motor vehicles October. All of these comments have application for a waiver. Finally, a specified by the waiver. If a fuel or fuel been included in the public docket and partial waiver gives full meaning to all additive manufacturer does not comply thus made available to all members of of the provisions at issue. with the conditions, then EPA will the public for review and comment. For example, in this case, granting a consider their fuel or fuel additive as Many commenters have taken the partial waiver means that E15 can be having been introduced into commerce opportunity to submit additional introduced into commerce for use in a for use by a broader group of vehicles comments in light of other comments subset of motor vehicles, MY2007 and and engines than is allowed under the and information included in the docket. newer light-duty motor vehicles, and waiver, constituting a violation of the Data from ongoing vehicle testing only for use in those motor vehicles. For section 211(f)(1) prohibition. programs, including DOE’s data, have EPA recognizes, as several those motor vehicles, EPA is not making been included in the public docket commenters have suggested, that EPA a finding of it being substantially shortly after EPA has received the can impose waiver conditions only on similar, but E15 has been demonstrated information, making it available for the to not cause or contribute to these motor those parties who are subject to the public’s review and comment as soon as vehicles exceeding their applicable section 211(f)(1) prohibition and the practicable. Many commenters emissions standards. It will also not waiver of that prohibition. These parties providing substantive feedback on the cause any other motor vehicles or any are the fuel and fuel additive waiver application have been involved other on or off-road vehicles or engines manufacturers. Waiver conditions can in one or more of the various testing to exceed their emissions standards apply to them, but cannot apply directly since it may not be introduced into to various downstream parties, such as programs, including DOE’s, and commerce for use in any other motor a retailer who is not also a fuel or fuel consequently have had immediate vehicles or any other vehicles or additive manufacturer. This is one access to the data. Comments submitted engines. Thus, under a partial waiver, as reason EPA is also proposing specific to the docket reflect that commenters the commenter suggested, all emission misfueling mitigation measures in a have had access to and an opportunity control devices in all the types of separate rulemaking under section to consider the various testing mobile sources listed will not be 211(c), to minimize any risk of information cited by EPA in the waiver adversely impacted by the fuel. It can misfueling. This will also facilitate decision. only be introduced into commerce for compliance with certain of the waiver EPA has also held numerous meetings those vehicles and engines where it has conditions. with stakeholders in which stakeholders been shown not to cause emissions Many commenters suggested that have shared their comments, concerns problems; for other types of mobile before EPA can grant a waiver of any and additional data regarding the waiver sources, it cannot be introduced into type under section 211(f)(4), the Agency request. Information received at these commerce for use in such vehicles and must first issue a rule under section meetings has been made available in the engines. In concept, therefore, the 211(c) that addresses the proper public docket. prohibition and control of a new fuel or combination of this partial waiver, with In view of the access that has been fuel additive to the extent necessary appropriate conditions, and partial made available to the relevant before such fuel or fuel additive is retention of the substantially similar information in the public docket, EPA permitted under section 211(f)(4). prohibition, has the same effect as when believes no need exists for a second the criteria for a total waiver has been However, there is no mention of timing public comment period. Moreover, EPA met—the fuel or fuel additive will only in these two statutory provisions and has already satisfied its notice and be introduced into commerce for use in EPA believes it appropriate to consider comment requirements for this Decision a manner that will not cause violations the merits of a section 211(f)(4) waiver and has no legal obligation to provide across the fleet of motor vehicles and request on its face. an additional notice and comment nonroad products. It can only be B. Notice and Comment Procedures period. EPA satisfied its procedural introduced into commerce for use in Section 211(f)(4) requires that EPA requirements through the public notice and comment period EPA already (f)(4), which, as discussed above, envisions use of grant or deny an application for a such subsets of vehicles. waiver ‘‘after public notice and provided (see Section II.B) and nothing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68147

in section 211(f)(4) mandates a second control systems for the breadth of motor noncompliance of the motor vehicle comment period.140 vehicles in the fleet, whether they are with its emission standards, as the within or outside the regulatory useful emissions standards are defined in part C. ‘‘Useful Life’’ Language in Section life of an applicable emissions standard. by the useful life provision. See House 211(f)(4) This broad scope recognizes that the Conference Report No. 95–564 (To In making any waiver decision, emissions control system of a motor accompany H.R. 6161), Aug. 3, 1977, pp section 211(f)(4) indicates that EPA vehicle continues to operate and 160–162 (‘‘The conferees also intend should ensure that any new fuel or fuel provide important emissions benefits that the words ’cause or contribute to additive will not cause or contribute to throughout the actual life of the motor the failure of an emission control device a vehicle or engine failing to meet its vehicle, including the many miles or or system to meet emission standards emissions standards over its useful life. years that it may be operated past its over its useful life to which it has been The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulatory useful life. Thus, it is certified pursuant to section 206’ mean define ‘‘useful life’’ for the vehicles and important that the motor vehicle the noncompliance of an engine or engines EPA regulates, see CAA sections continue to use fuels that do not device with emission levels to which it 202(d) and 213(d), and EPA includes interfere with the continued normal was certified, taking into account the those definitions in the same regulations operation of the emissions control deterioration factors employed in that contain the emission standards for system after its regulatory useful life. certifying the engine.’’) This indicates those vehicles and engines. That normal operation may not ensure that Congress was not trying to limit the As discussed above, the construction that the motor vehicle stills meets the scope of the waiver provision, but of section 211(f) indicates that the applicable emissions standards, but it is instead was using language normally meaning of section 211(f)(4) is best typically such that it provides used when referring to the emission determined by reading it in context with significant emissions control benefits for standards. Congress wanted to ensure the substantially similar prohibition in the country. Congress recognized this that new fuels or fuel additives allowed section 211(f)(1). Section 211(f)(1) and prohibited entry into commence of into the marketplace through a waiver contains the general prohibition against fuels or fuel additives that could would be the kinds of fuels or fuel introducing fuels and fuel additives that interfere with this result, no matter how additives that are consistent with motor are not ‘‘substantially similar’’ to the old the motor vehicle. Congress also vehicles meeting their applicable certification fuels used for certifying recognized this goal by prohibiting emissions standards. 1975 and subsequent model year motor tampering anytime during the actual life In that context, EPA looks at whether vehicles with EPA’s emissions of the motor vehicle, not just during its the fuel or fuel additive would lead to standards. The prohibition is expansive, regulatory useful life. See CAA section an exceedance of the emissions effectively protecting MY1975 and 203(a)(3).141 standards if it was used during the newer motor vehicles from using fuels In promulgating CAA section motor vehicle’s regulatory useful life. If or fuel additives that could 211(f)(4), Congress provided EPA with that is the case, then the fuel should not detrimentally impact their ability to the authority to waive the prohibition be entered into commerce for use by meet their emissions standards. In for particular fuels or fuel additives, but that motor vehicle anytime during its enacting this provision, Congress stated only when the fuel or fuel additive actual life—just as the section 211(f)(1) that ‘‘the intention of this new manufacturer demonstrated that motor prohibition ensures that motor vehicles subsection [(f)] is to prevent the use of vehicles could still meet their emissions will not use fuel or fuel additives any new or recently introduced additive standards while using the particular fuel anytime during their actual lives that in those unleaded grades of gasoline or fuel additive. See Senate Report are not substantially similar to the fuel required to be used in 1975 and (Environment and Public Works or fuel additives used to certify their subsequent model year automobiles Committee) No. 95–127, May 10, 1977, compliance with the emissions which may impair emission pg 91 (‘‘The waiver process * * * was standards over their regulatory useful performance of vehicles * * *.’’ Senate established * * * so that the lives. This gives a reasonable meaning Report (Environment and Public Works prohibition could be waived, or to the waiver provision and keeps it Committee) No. 95–127 (To accompany conditionally waived, rapidly if the parallel and complementary to the S. 252), May 10, 1977, pg 90. This manufacturer of the additive or the fuel section 211(f)(1) provision to which it is general prohibition equally protects all establishes to the satisfaction of the tied. EPA believes this reflects Congress’ MY1975 and newer motor vehicles from Administrator that the additive, whether intention and avoids an unintended the use of new fuels and fuel additives in certain amounts or under certain consequence that would be far at odds that the motor vehicles may not have conditions, will not be harmful to the with the apparent purpose of sections been designed to use and could degrade performance of emission control devices 211(f)(1) and (4). If EPA were limited to their emissions control systems. or systems.’’). While section 211(f)(4) The section 211(f)(1) prohibition is only considering motor vehicles within refers to the ‘‘useful life’’ of the motor designed to protect the emissions their regulatory useful lives, this could vehicle, that is part of the reference to require the Agency to approve waiver causing or contributing to the 140 This Decision is distinguishable from the requests for new fuels and fuel additives outcome in Air Transport Ass’n of America v. FAA, even if they were clearly known to 169 F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 1999). In ATA v. FAA, the DC 141 Additionally, Congress authorized EPA to set Circuit found that the FAA’s reliance on ex parte separate in-use standards (section 202(g)) and to seriously degrade emission control information submitted after closure of the public order recall of motor vehicles not meeting those devices or systems and cause large comment period violated the applicable notice and standards (section 207(c)(1)), further illustrating its emissions increases in older motor comment period requirements. The Court’s holding intent that emissions reductions continue at all vehicles, which comprise a significant was primarily based on the private nature of the times during the actual life of motor vehicles. Also information. ATA, 169 F.3d at 8 (‘‘The important see General Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 742 F.2d percentage of the entire fleet. Allowing point is that because the transmission of this 1561 (DC Cir. 1984) (finding that section 207(c)(1) such a detrimental fuel or fuel additive information * * * was never public, petitioner did enables EPA to order a recall of all motor vehicles into the marketplace is clearly contrary not have a fair opportunity to comment on it.’’). In in a class—even those beyond their statutory useful to the purposes of section 211(f) which contrast, the data relied upon by the Agency in this life—as long as EPA can demonstrate that those waiver decision were included in the pubic docket motor vehicles were not meeting their emissions is designed as a whole to protect the for the decision prior to its issuance. standards while within their useful life.) benefits of the emissions control

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68148 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

standards over the actual life of the approved for its use, to mitigate the ethanol—that is, the fuel is gasoline motor vehicles. potential for intentional and containing greater than 10 vol% ethanol unintentional misfueling of these and up to 15 vol% ethanol. X. Waiver Conditions vehicles and engines. Labeling is also Based on the Agency’s experience The conditions placed upon the done at the point of sale where the with fuel pump labeling for Ultra-Low partial waiver EPA is granting today fall consumer most likely will be choosing Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and Low Sulfur into two categories. The first category which fuel to use. Second, retail stations Diesel (LSD) (see 40 CFR 80.570), there concerns properties of the ethanol used and wholesale purchaser-consumers are four important elements to an to manufacture E15 and the properties need assurance regarding the ethanol effective label for misfueling. The of the final E15 blend. The second content of the fuel that they purchase so language of the E15 label must contain category of conditions concerns they can direct the fuel to the four components: (1) An information mitigation of potential misfueling with appropriate storage tank and properly component; (2) a legal approval E15. Any party wishing to utilize this label their fuel pumps. The use of component; (3) a technical warning partial waiver for E15 must satisfy all of proper documentation in the form of component; and (4) a legal warning these conditions to be able to lawfully PTDs has proven to be an effective component. Together, these four register and introduce E15, or ethanol means of both ensuring that retail components highlight the critical used to make E15, into commerce. stations know what fuel they are information necessary to inform A. Fuel Quality Conditions purchasing and as a possible defense for consumers about the impacts of using retail stations in cases of liability in the E15. As requested by Growth Energy in event of a violation of EPA standards. The labeling requirements EPA is their waiver request application, and as Third, labeling and fuel sampling proposing today in a separate proposed is industry practice, the partial waiver surveys are necessary to ensure that rule concurrent with today’s partial for E15 contains a condition that retail stations are complying with waiver decision would place labeling requires use of ethanol which meets labeling requirements, ethanol blenders requirements on retail stations that industry specifications as outlined in are not blending more than the stated dispense E15. Compliance with these 142 ASTM International D4806. amount of ethanol on PTDs, and labeling requirements, when finalized, Additionally, as discussed above in our assuring downstream compliance for will satisfy this fuel pump dispenser evaluation of the potential effect of E15 fuel refiners. The Agency has used this labeling condition. If a fuel or fuel on evaporative emissions, the partial general strategy to implement several additive manufacturer chooses to utilize waiver for E15 contains a condition that fuel programs over the past thirty years, this partial waiver prior to finalization E15 must meet a maximum RVP of 9.0 including the unleaded gasoline of today’s proposed rule, a label psi during the summertime volatility program, the RFG program, and the designed to meet the components season, May 1 through September 15. diesel sulfur program. These strategies described in today’s proposed rule and B. Misfueling Mitigation Conditions and are conditions of use associated with approved by EPA can satisfy this fuel Strategies today’s waiver decision and are pump dispenser labeling condition of described below. this partial waiver decision. EPA believes that minimizing the While not a condition of today’s possibility of misfueling of E15 into waiver decision, the fourth component 2. Fuel Pump Labeling and Fuel Sample vehicles or engines for which it is not of an effective misfueling mitigation Survey approved would best be achieved strategy is effective public outreach and Any fuel or fuel additive through implementation of misfueling consumer education. Outreach to manufacturer using this partial waiver mitigation requirements as proposed by consumers and stakeholders is critical must participate in a survey, approved EPA today in a separate action. to mitigate misfueling incidents that can by EPA, of compliance at fuel retail Nevertheless, EPA is allowing the use of result in increased emissions and facilities conducted by an independent the partial waiver prior to the vehicle damage. Consumers need to be surveyor. An EPA-approved survey plan finalization of such requirements engaged through a variety of media to is to be in place prior to introduction of provided the fuel or fuel additive ensure that accurate information is E15 into the marketplace and the results manufacturer using the partial waiver conveyed to the owners and operators of of the survey must be provided to EPA can implement the conditions described vehicles and engines. for use in its enforcement and below prior to introducing E15 into EPA recognizes that it may be difficult compliance assurance activities. commerce. Any fuel or fuel to fully implement all of these One of two options may be utilized to manufacturer wishing to utilize this misfueling mitigation strategies prior to meet this condition of this partial partial waiver must submit a plan for finalization of today’s proposed rule. waiver decision: EPA approval for implementing these However, any fuel or fuel additive For Survey Option 1, a fuel or fuel misfueling mitigation conditions. EPA manufacturer wishing to introduce E15 additive manufacturer may individually will determine if the plan is sufficient into commerce before EPA finalizes its survey labels and ethanol content at to address these conditions. misfueling mitigation measures rule will retail stations wherever its gasoline, We believe that there are four need to demonstrate to EPA its ability ethanol, or ethanol blend may be important components to an effective to meet the following misfueling distributed if it may be blended as E15. misfueling mitigation strategy for mitigation conditions of the partial EPA must approve this survey plan reducing the potential for misfueling waiver: before it is conducted by the fuel or fuel with E15. First, effective labeling is a additive manufacturer. key factor. Labeling is needed to inform 1. Fuel Pump Dispenser Labeling For Survey Option 2, a fuel or fuel consumers of the potential impacts of Any fuel or fuel additive additive manufacturer may choose to using E15 in vehicles and engines not manufacturer using this partial waiver conduct the survey through a must ensure the labeling of any nationwide program of sampling and 142 ASTM International D4806–10, Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for dispensers of this gasoline-ethanol testing designed to provide oversight of Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive blend. The label would have to indicate all retail stations that sell gasoline. Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. that the fuel contains up to 15 vol% Details of the survey requirements are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 68149

similar to those included in the ULSD condition of this partial waiver XI. Reid Vapor Pressure and RFG programs. A fuel or fuel decision. Commenters questioned whether E15 additive manufacturer may conduct this 4. Public Outreach would qualify for the 1.0 psi RVP survey as part of a consortium, as waiver permitted for E10 under CAA discussed in the proposed rule. While not a formal condition of this section 211(h). As explained in the EPA is proposing more formal partial waiver, EPA recognizes the misfueling mitigation measures requirements for a national E15 labeling importance of outreach to consumers and ethanol content survey in today’s and stakeholders to misfueling proposed rule, EPA interprets the 1.0 notice of proposed rulemaking. If a fuel mitigation. The potential for E15 psi waiver in CAA section 211(h) as or fuel additive manufacturer chooses to misfueling incidents may exist for being limited to gasoline-ethanol blends utilize this partial waiver prior to several reasons. For example, that contain 10 vol% ethanol. Please see finalization of today’s proposed rule, a consumers may be inclined to misfuel the preamble of that proposed rule for survey designed to satisfy the when E15 costs less than E10 or E0. more discussion of this issue and for an components described in today’s Additionally, in some situations, it may opportunity to submit comments on this proposed rule and approved by EPA be more difficult to find fuels other than issue. will be deemed to be sufficient to satisfy E15. EPA thus encourages fuel and fuel XII. Partial Waiver Decision and this fuel pump labeling and fuel sample additive manufacturers to conduct a Conditions survey condition of this partial waiver public outreach and education program decision. prior to any introduction of E15 into Based on all the data and information commerce. described above, EPA has determined 3. Proper Documentation of Ethanol A recent example of outreach to that, subject to compliance with all of Content on Product Transfer Documents consumers and stakeholders that may be the conditions below, a gasoline Today’s proposed rule would require applicable is coordinated work done in produced with greater than 10 vol% and that parties that transfer blendstocks, support of the ULSD program. ULSD no more than 15 vol% ethanol (E15) base gasoline for oxygenate blending, was a new fuel with the possibility of will not cause or contribute to a failure and/or finished gasoline that contains consumer misfueling that could result of certain motor vehicles to achieve ethanol content greater than 10 vol% in engine damage. With ULSD, the fuel compliance with their emission and no more than 15 vol% include the industry trade association API took the standards to which they have been ethanol concentration of the fuel in lead in working with stakeholders to certified over their useful lives. volume percent. Product transfer establish the Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance Therefore, the waiver request documents (PTDs) are customarily (CDFA), a collaboration of public and application submitted by Growth Energy generated and used in the course of private organizations designed to ensure for its gasoline-ethanol blend with up to business and are familiar to parties who a smooth program transition by 15 vol% ethanol is partially and transfer or receive blendstocks or base providing comprehensive information conditionally granted as follows: gasoline for oxygenate blending and and technical coordination. The (1) The partial waiver applies only to oxygenated gasoline. Since we are organizations represented in the CDFA fuels or fuel additives introduced into approving a partial waiver for the include engine manufacturers, fuel commerce for use in MY2007 and newer introduction into commerce of E15 for retailers, trucking fleets, DOE and EPA. light-duty motor vehicles, light-duty use in only MY2007 and newer motor CDFA efforts to educate ULSD users trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles, the PTDs that accompany the include developing technical guidance vehicles (hereafter ‘‘MY2007 and newer transfer of base gasoline/gasoline and educational information, including light-duty motor vehicles’’) as certified blendstocks used for oxygenate blending a Web site (http://www.clean-diesel.org), under Section 206 of the Act. The and for oxygenated gasoline must as well as serving as a central point of waiver does not apply to fuels or fuel include the ethanol content of the fuel contact to address ULSD-related additives introduced into commerce for to help avoid misfueling. Downstream questions. use in pre-MY2007 motor vehicles, of the terminal where ethanol blending The CDFA outreach model could heavy-duty gasoline engines or vehicles, takes place, information on the prove beneficial in this case. EPA or motorcycles certified under section maximum ethanol concentration in the anticipates that all parties involved in 206 of the Act, or any nonroad engines, ethanol blend is needed to help ensure bringing higher gasoline-ethanol blends nonroad vehicles, or motorcycles that fuel shipments are delivered into to market will participate in a certified under section 213(a) of the Act. the appropriate storage tanks at retail coordinated industry-led consumer (2) The waiver applies to the blending and fleet gasoline dispensing education and outreach effort. In the of greater than 10 vol% and no more facilities.143 A gasoline retail station and context of this program, potential key than 15 vol% anhydrous ethanol into fleet dispensing facility must know the participants include ethanol producers, gasoline,144 and the ethanol must meet ethanol content of a fuel shipment so fuel and fuel additive manufacturers, the specifications for fuel ethanol found that fuel pumps may be correctly automobile, engine and equipment in the ASTM International specification labeled. manufacturers, States, non- D4806–10.145 In the event that there is a period of governmental organizations, parties in (3) The final fuel must have a Reid time when this partial waiver is utilized the fuel distribution system, EPA, DOE, Vapor Pressure not in excess of 9.0 psi prior to finalization of today’s proposal, and USDA. Potential education and during the time period from May 1 to a PTD program designed to satisfy the outreach activities a public/private September 15. elements of today’s proposed rule will group could undertake include serving be sufficient to satisfy the PTD as a central clearinghouse for technical 144 Gasoline in this case may be gasoline questions about E15 and its use, blendstocks that produce gasoline upon the 143 Evaluations are underway which may promoting best practices to educate addition of the specified amount of ethanol covered facilitate the shipment of gasoline-ethanol blends consumers or mitigate misfueling by the waiver. by pipeline to terminals. Hence, parties upstream of 145 ASTM D4806–10, Standard Specification for the terminal may need to include information on instances, and developing education Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with maximum ethanol concentration on product PTDs materials and making them available to Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition in the future. the public. Engine Fuel.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 68150 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices

(4) Fuel and fuel additive (D) Using E15 in vehicles and engines survey plan must be approved by EPA manufacturers subject to this partial not approved for use might damage prior to conducting the survey plan. waiver must submit to EPA a plan, for those vehicles and engines. (d) Any other reasonable measures EPA’s approval, and must fully (ii) The fuel or fuel additive EPA determines are appropriate. implement that EPA-approved plan, manufacturer must submit the label it prior to introduction of the fuel or fuel intends to use for EPA approval prior to (5) Failure to fully implement any additive into commerce as appropriate. its use on any fuel pump dispenser. condition of this partial waiver means The plan must include provisions that (b) Reasonable measures for ensuring the fuel or fuel additive introduced into will implement all reasonable that product transfer documents commerce is not covered by this partial precautions for ensuring that the fuel or accompanying the shipment of a waiver. fuel additive (i.e., gasoline intended for gasoline produced with greater than 10 This partial waiver decision is final use in E15, ethanol intended for use in vol% ethanol and no more than 15 vol% agency action of national applicability E15, or final E15 blend) is only ethanol properly document the volume for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the introduced into commerce for use in of ethanol. Act. Pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1), MY2007 and newer motor vehicles. The (c)(i) Participation in a survey of judicial review of this final agency plan must be sent to the following compliance at fuel retail dispensing action may be sought only in the United address: Director, Compliance and facilities. The fuel or fuel additive States Court of Appeals for the District Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. manufacturer must submit a statistically of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 sound survey plan to EPA for its must be filed by January 3, 2011. Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Mail Code approval and begin implementing the Judicial review of this final agency 6405J, Washington, DC 20460. survey plan prior to the introduction of Reasonable precautions in a plan must E15 into the marketplace. The results of action may not be obtained in include, but are not limited to, the the survey must be provided to EPA.146 subsequent proceedings, pursuant to following conditions on this partial The fuel or fuel additive manufacturer CAA section 307(b)(2). This action is waiver: conducting a survey may choose from not a rulemaking and is not subject to (a)(i) Reasonable measures for either of the following two options: the various statutory and other ensuring that any retail fuel pump (ii) Individual survey option: Conduct provisions applicable to a rulemaking. dispensers that are dispensing a a survey of labels and ethanol content Dated: October 13, 2010. gasoline produced with greater than 10 at retail stations wherever your gasoline, Lisa P. Jackson, vol% ethanol and no more than 15 vol% ethanol, or ethanol blend may be Administrator. ethanol are clearly labeled for ensuring distributed if it may be blended as E15. that consumers do not misfuel the The survey plan must be approved by [FR Doc. 2010–27432 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] waivered gasoline-ethanol blend into EPA prior to conducting the survey BILLING CODE 6560–50–P vehicles or engines not covered by the plan. waiver. The label shall convey the (iii) Nationwide survey option: following information: Contract with an individual survey (A) The fuel being dispensed contains organization to perform a nationwide 15% ethanol maximum; survey program of sampling and testing (B) The fuel is for use in only MY2007 designed to provide oversight of all and newer gasoline cars, MY2007 and retail stations that sell gasoline. The newer light-duty trucks and all flex-fuel vehicles; 146 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published (C) Federal law prohibits the use of in today’s Federal Register, EPA is proposing a the fuel in other vehicles and engines; more detailed labeling, product transfer documents, and and survey plan.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04NON2.SGM 04NON2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Thursday, November 4, 2010

Part IV

The President Proclamation 8596—To Adjust the Rules of Origin Under the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, Implement Modifications to the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, and for Other Purposes Proclamation 8597—National Adoption Month, 2010

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 68153

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 75, No. 213

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Title 3— Proclamation 8596 of November 1, 2010

The President To Adjust the Rules of Origin Under the United States-Bah- rain Free Trade Agreement, Implement Modifications to the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, and for Other Pur- poses

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation 1. In Presidential Proclamation 8097 of December 29, 2006, pursuant to the authority provided in section 1206(a) of the Omnibus Trade and Competi- tiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 3006(a)) (the ‘‘1988 Act’’), the President modified the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) to reflect amendments to the International Convention on the Harmonized Com- modity Description and Coding System (the ‘‘Convention’’). 2. Presidential Proclamation 8039 of July 27, 2006, implemented the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (USBFTA) with respect to the United States and, pursuant to section 101(a) of the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the ‘‘USBFTA Implementation Act’’) (Public Law 109–169, 119 Stat. 3581) (19 U.S.C. 3805 note), incorporated in the HTS the schedule of duty reductions and rules of origin necessary or appropriate to carry out the USBFTA. 3. In order to ensure the continuation of the staged reductions in rates of duty for originating goods from Bahrain in categories that were modified to conform to the Convention, the President proclaimed in Presidential Proclamation 8097 modifications to the HTS that he determined were necessary or appropriate to carry out the duty reductions proclaimed in Procla- mation 8039. 4. Bahrain is a party to the Convention. Because the substance of changes to the Convention are reflected in slightly differing form in the national tariff schedules of the parties to the USBFTA, the rules of origin set out in Annexes 3–A and 4–A of that Agreement must be changed to ensure that the tariff and certain other treatment accorded under the USBFTA to originating goods will continue to be provided under the tariff categories that were modified in Proclamation 8097. The USBFTA parties have agreed to make these changes in a protocol to the USBFTA, which will go into effect on November 1, 2010. 5. Section 202 of the USBFTA Implementation Act provides certain rules for determining whether a good is an originating good for purposes of implementing tariff treatment under the USBFTA. Section 202(j)(1)(A) of the USBFTA Implementation Act authorizes the President to proclaim the rules of origin set out in the USBFTA and any subordinate categories necessary to carry out the USBFTA, subject to certain exceptions set out in section 202(j)(2)(A). 6. I have determined that modifications to the HTS proclaimed pursuant to section 202 of the USBFTA Implementation Act and section 1206(a) of the 1988 Act are necessary or appropriate to ensure the continuation of tariff and certain other treatment accorded originating goods under tariff categories modified in Proclamation 8097 and to carry out the duty reductions proclaimed in Proclamation 8039.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 68154 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

7. Section 213A of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703a) (CBERA), as amended by the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–171, 124 Stat. 1194) (19 U.S.C. 2701 note) (the ‘‘HELP Act’’), provides that preferential tariff treatment may be provided for apparel and other articles originating in Haiti that are imported directly from Haiti or the Dominican Republic into the customs territory of the United States. 8. In order to implement the tariff treatment provided for under the CBERA, as amended, it is necessary to modify the HTS. 9. Proclamation 7987 of February 28, 2006, implemented the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–DR). There was a technical error in the form of an inadvertent omission from Annex I of Publication 3829 of the United States International Trade Commis- sion (USITC) entitled ‘‘Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to Implement the Dominican Republic-Central America- United States Free Trade Agreement With Respect to El Salvador,’’ which was incorporated by reference into Proclamation 7987. 10. I have determined that a technical correction to general note 29 to the HTS is necessary to provide the tariff and certain other treatment accorded under the CAFTA–DR to originating goods. 11. In Proclamation 8097 two technical errors were made in U.S. note 2 to subchapter XVII of chapter 98 of the HTS as set forth in Annex I of Publication 3898 of the USITC entitled ‘‘Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Under Section 1206 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,’’ which was incorporated by reference into Proclamation 8097. 12. I have determined that technical corrections to U.S. note 2 to subchapter XVII of chapter 98 of the HTS are necessary to provide the intended tariff treatment. 13. Proclamation 8405 of August 31, 2009, modified certain rules of origin of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Technical errors, including an inadvertent omission, were made in the modifications to general note 12 to the HTS as provided in Annex I of Publication 4095 of the USITC entitled ‘‘Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to Adjust Rules of Origin Under the North American Free Trade Agreement,’’ which was incorporated by reference into Proclamation 8405. 14. I have determined that technical corrections to general note 12 to the HTS are necessary to provide the tariff and certain other treatment accorded under the NAFTA to originating goods. 15. Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the ‘‘1974 Act’’) (19 U.S.C. 2483), authorizes the President to embody in the HTS the substance of the provisions of that Act, and of other Acts, affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder, including the removal, modification, continuance, or imposition of any rate of duty or other import restriction. Section 1206(c) of the 1988 Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 3006(c)), provides that any modifications proclaimed by the President under section 1206(a) of that Act may not take effect before the thirtieth day after the date on which the text of the proclamation is published in the Federal Register. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including but not limited to section 1206(a) of the 1988 Act, section 202 of the USBFTA Implementa- tion Act, section 213A of CBERA, as amended, and section 604 of the 1974 Act, do proclaim that: (1) In order to reflect in the HTS the modifications to the rules of origin under the USBFTA once those modifications go into effect, general note 30 to the HTS is modified as provided in Annex I to this proclamation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 68155

(2) In order to implement the tariff treatment provided for in section 213A of CBERA, as amended, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex II to this proclamation. (3) In order to make the technical corrections to general note 29 to the HTS, the HTS is modified as set forth in paragraph 1 of Annex III to this proclamation. (4) In order to make the technical corrections to U.S. note 2 to subchapter XVII of chapter 98 of the HTS, the HTS is modified as set forth in paragraph 2 of Annex III to this proclamation. (5) In order to make technical corrections to general note 12 to the HTS, the HTS is modified as set forth in paragraph 3 of Annex III to this proclamation. (6) The modifications and technical rectifications to the HTS set forth in Annex I to this proclamation shall be effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the later of (i) November 1, 2010, or (ii) the thirtieth day after the date of publication of this proclamation in the Federal Register. (7) The modifications to the HTS set forth in Annexes II and III to this proclamation shall be effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the dates provided in those Annexes. (8) Any provisions of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that are inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 OB#1.EPS 68156 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.007 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 68157

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.008 68158 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.009 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 68159

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.010 68160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.011 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 68161

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.012 68162 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.013 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 68163

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.014 68164 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.015 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 68165

[FR Doc. 2010–28116 Filed 11–3–10; 11:15 am] Billing code 7020–02–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:38 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD6.SGM 04NOD6 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 ED04NO10.016 68166 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents Presidential Documents

Proclamation 8597 of November 1, 2010 National Adoption Month, 2010

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation Giving a child a strong foundation—a home, a family to love, and a safe place to grow—is one of life’s greatest and most generous gifts. Through adoption, both domestic and international, Americans from across our country have provided secure environments for children who need them, and these families have benefited from the joy an adopted child can bring. Thanks to their nurturing and care, more young people have been able to realize their potential and lead full, happy lives. This year, we celebrate National Adoption Month to recognize adoption as a positive and powerful force in countless American lives, and to encourage the adoption of children from foster care. Currently, thousands of children await adoption or are in foster care, looking forward to permanent homes. These children can thrive, reach their full potential, and spread their wings when given the loving and firm foundation of family. Adoptive families come in many forms, and choose to adopt for different reasons: a desire to grow their family when conceiving a child is not possible, an expression of compassion for a child who would otherwise not have a permanent family, or simply because adoption has personally touched their lives. For many Americans, adoption has brought boundless purpose and joy to their lives. We must do all we can to break down barriers to ensure that all qualified caregivers have the ability to serve as adoptive families. This year, on November 20, families, adoption advocates, policymakers, judges, and volunteers will celebrate the 11th annual National Adoption Day in communities large and small. National Adoption Day is a day of hope and happiness when courthouses finalize the adoptions of children out of foster care. Last year, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was honored to preside over a ceremony celebrating two foster care adoptions as part of my Administration’s support for this important day. Adoptive families are shining examples of the care and concern that define our great Nation. To support adoption in our communities, my Administra- tion is working with States to support families eager to provide for children in need of a place to call home. The landmark Affordable Care Act increases and improves the Adoption Tax Credit, enabling adoption to be more affordable and accessible. As part of the Adoption Incentives program, States can also receive awards for increasing adoptions and the number of children adopted from foster care. AdoptUsKids, a project of the Department of Health and Human Services, offers technical support to States, territories, and tribes to recruit and retain foster and adoptive families; provides information and assistance to families considering adoption; and supports parents already on that journey. I encourage all Americans to visit AdoptUsKids.org or ChildWelfare.gov/Adoption for information and resources on adoption, including adoption from foster care. As we observe National Adoption Month, we honor the loving embrace of adoptive families and the affirming role of adoption in the lives of American families and our country. Let us all commit to supporting our

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:55 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD7.SGM 04NOD7 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Presidential Documents 68167

children in any way that we are able—whether opening our hearts and homes through adoption, becoming foster parents to provide quality temporary care to children in crisis, supporting foster and adoptive families in our communities and places of worship, mentoring young people in need of guidance, or donating time to helping children in need. Working together, we can shape a future of hope and promise for all of our Nation’s children. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2010 as National Adoption Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month by answering the call to find homes for every child in America in need of a permanent and caring family, as well as to support the families who care for them. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010–28117 Filed 11–3–10; 11:15 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:55 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\04NOD7.SGM 04NOD7 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with FRD6 OB#1.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 213 Thursday, November 4, 2010

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING NOVEMBER

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 39...... 67611, 67613 Presidential Documents 3 CFR 71...... 67910, 67911 Proclamations: Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 95...... 67210 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 8590...... 67897 8591...... 67899 Proposed Rules: Other Services 8592...... 67901 39 ...... 67253, 67637, 67639 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 8593...... 67903 15 CFR Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 8594...... 67905 748...... 67029 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 8595...... 67907 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 8596...... 68153 16 CFR 8597...... 68167 Administrative Orders: 305...... 67615 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH Memorandums: Proposed Rules: World Wide Web Memorandum of 1512...... 67043 September 20, 1632...... 67047 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 2010 ...... 67023 is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html 17 CFR Memorandum of Federal Register information and research tools, including Public September 23, Proposed Rules: Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 2010 ...... 67025 Ch. I ...... 67301 http://www.archives.gov/federallregister Notices: 1...... 67254, 67642 E-mail Notice of November 1, 4...... 67254 2010 ...... 67587 15...... 67258 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is Presidential 20...... 67258 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital Determinations: 30...... 67642 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form No. 2010-11 of August 39...... 67277 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 10, 2010 ...... 67011 40...... 67282 PDF links to the full text of each document. No. 2010-12 of August 140...... 67277 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 26, 2010 ...... 67013 180...... 67657 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list No. 2010-14 of (or change settings); then follow the instructions. September 3, 20 CFR PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 2010 ...... 67015 Proposed Rules: 655...... 67662 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. No. 2010-15 of September 10, To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 2010 ...... 67017 21 CFR and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow No. 2010-16 of 520...... 67031 the instructions. September 15, Proposed Rules: FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 2010 ...... 67019 1308...... 67054 respond to specific inquiries. 5 CFR 27 CFR Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 302...... 67589 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 9...... 67616 330...... 67589 Proposed Rules: The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 335...... 67589 4 ...... 67663, 67666, 67669 regulations. 337...... 67589 5...... 67669 Reminders. Effective January 1, 2009, the Reminders, including 410...... 67589 7...... 67669 Rules Going Into Effect and Comments Due Next Week, no longer 6 CFR appear in the Reader Aids section of the Federal Register. This 31 CFR 5...... 67909 information can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov. 510...... 67912 7 CFR CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no 33 CFR longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 920...... 67605 found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. 993...... 67607 100...... 67214 1215...... 67609 165 ...... 67032, 67216, 67618, 67620 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, NOVEMBER 10 CFR Proposed Rules: 67011–67200...... 1 Proposed Rules: 165...... 67673 73...... 67636 67201–67588...... 2 34 CFR 67589–67896...... 3 431...... 67637 600...... 67170 67897–68168...... 4 12 CFR 668...... 67170 Proposed Rules: 682...... 67170 226...... 67458 685...... 67170 14 CFR 40 CFR 25...... 67201 52...... 67623

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:36 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\04NOCU.LOC 04NOCU hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 ii Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Reader Aids

63...... 67625 301-30...... 67629 47 CFR 571...... 67233 81...... 67220 301-31...... 67629 74...... 67227 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: Appendix E to Ch. 78...... 67227 523...... 67059 63...... 67676 301 ...... 67629 Proposed Rules: 534...... 67059 80...... 68044 302-3...... 67629 1...... 67060 535...... 67059 81...... 67303 302-4...... 67629 9...... 67321 85...... 67059 302-6...... 67629 20...... 67321 50 CFR 86...... 67059 303-70...... 67629 64...... 67333 261...... 67919 73...... 67077 17...... 67512 1036...... 67059 42 CFR 600...... 67247 1037...... 67059 48 CFR 622...... 67247 Proposed Rules: 1065...... 67059 635...... 67251 5...... 67303 237...... 67632 1066...... 67059 252...... 67632 660...... 67032 1068...... 67059 Proposed Rules: 44 CFR 49 CFR 17 ...... 67341, 67552, 67676, 41 CFR Proposed Rules: 325...... 67634 67925 300-3...... 67629 67 ...... 67304, 67310, 67317 393...... 67634 660...... 67810

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:36 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\04NOCU.LOC 04NOCU hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Reader Aids iii

Superintendent of Documents, (Oct. 15, 2010; 124 Stat. U.S. Government Printing 3033) LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Office, Washington, DC 20402 Public Laws Electronic (phone, 202–512–1808). The S. 3196/P.L. 111–283 Notification Service This is a continuing list of text will also be made (PENS) public bills from the current available on the Internet from Pre-Election Presidential session of Congress which GPO Access at http:// Transition Act of 2010 (Oct. have become Federal laws. It www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/ 15, 2010; 124 Stat. 3045) PENS is a free electronic mail may be used in conjunction index.html. Some laws may notification service of newly with ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public Laws enacted public laws. To not yet be available. S. 3802/P.L. 111–284 Update Service) on 202–741– subscribe, go to http:// 6043. This list is also H.R. 3619/P.L. 111–281 Mount Stevens and Ted listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ available online at http:// publaws-l.html Stevens Icefield Designation www.archives.gov/federal- Coast Guard Authorization Act register/laws.html. of 2010 (Oct. 15, 2010; 124 Act (Oct. 18, 2010; 124 Stat. Note: This service is strictly Stat. 2905) 3050) for E-mail notification of new The text of laws is not laws. The text of laws is not S. 1510/P.L. 111–282 published in the Federal Last List October 18, 2010 available through this service. Register but may be ordered United States Secret Service PENS cannot respond to in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Uniformed Division specific inquiries sent to this pamphlet) form from the Modernization Act of 2010 address.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:36 Nov 03, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\04NOCU.LOC 04NOCU hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3