Vol. 76 Monday, No. 162 August 22, 2011 Pages 52209–52532

Vol. 76 Monday, No. 162 August 22, 2011

Pages 52209–52532

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Mar 15 2010 20:30 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\22AUWS.LOC 22AUWS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES II Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011

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 currently on file for public inspection, see www.ofr.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge at www.fdsys.gov, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512-1800 (toll free). E-mail, [email protected]. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable 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: 76 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 20:30 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\22AUWS.LOC 22AUWS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 162

Monday, August 22, 2011

Agriculture Department See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Forest Service NOTICES See National Agricultural Statistics Service Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See Rural Housing Service Submissions, and Approvals, 52311–52312 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Defense Acquisition Regulations System Submissions, and Approvals, 52303 PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: Army Department Safeguarding Unclassified DoD Information, 52297 NOTICES Availability for Exclusive, Non-Exclusive, or Partially- Defense Department Exclusive Licensing of an Invention: See Army Department Device and Method for Evaluating Manual Dexterity, See Defense Acquisition Regulations System 52322 NOTICES Meetings: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, 52319–52320 Enforcement Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 52320–52322 Education Department NOTICES Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sales; Availability: RULES Institutions and Lender Requirements Relating to Education Sale 218, Outer Continental Shelf, Western Planning Area Loans: in Gulf of Mexico, 52344 Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Loan Program, etc., Corrections, 52271–52272 NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health; Charter Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Renewal, 52329 52322–52323 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52329–52330 Employee Benefits Security Administration Meetings: PROPOSED RULES Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary, Special Emphasis Panel, 52330 52442–52475 Safety and Occupational Health Study Section, 52330– Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary: 52331 Templates, Instructions, and Related Materials under Public Health Service Act, 52475–52531 Children and Families Administration NOTICES Energy Department Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Submissions, and Approvals: Annual State MOE Report, 52331 Environmental Protection Agency State Plan for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, RULES 52331–52332 Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Coast Guard Maryland, 52278–52283 RULES Pennsylvania; Control of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Safety Zones: Glass Melting Furnaces, 52283–52286 Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier East, Chicago, IL, 52268– Virginia; Revisions to Clean Air Interstate Rule Emissions 52269 Trading Program, 52275–52278 Coast Guard Exercise, Detroit River, Ambassador Bridge Approvals and Promulgations of Implementation Plans: to the Western Tip of Belle Isle, 52266–52268 New Mexico; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Port Huron Float Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI, Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility, 52388– 52269–52271 52440 Special Local Regulation for Marine Events: Mattaponi Madness Drag Boat Race, Mattaponi River, Executive Office of the President Wakema, VA, 52263–52266 See Presidential Documents NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Federal Aviation Administration Submissions, and Approvals, 52336–52339 RULES Activation of Ice Protection, 52241–52249 Commerce Department Airworthiness Directives: See Industry and Security Bureau Airbus Model A330–200, A330–300, A340–300, A340– See International Trade Administration 500, and A340–600 Series Airplanes, 52217–52220

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:31 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22AUCN.SGM 22AUCN sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES IV Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Contents

Boeing Co. Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), Federal Trade Commission DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 RULES Airplanes, 52225–52229 Rules of Practice, 52249–52253 Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), Model CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Fish and Wildlife Service Series 705), and Model CL 600 2D24 (Regional Jet PROPOSED RULES Series 900) Airplanes, 52222–52225 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) U.S. Captive-bred Inter-subspecific Crossed or Generic Model EMB–500 Airplanes, 52220–52222 Tigers, 52297–52301 General Electric Co. CF34–10E2A1; CF34–10E5; CF34– NOTICES 10E5A1; CF34–10E6; CF34–10E6A1; CF34–10E7; and Applications for Incidental Take Permits: CF34–10E7–B Turbofan Engines, 52215–52217 Madison Cave Isopod from Dominion Virginia Power, General Electric Co. CF6–45 Series and CF6–50 Series 52344–52345 Turbofan Engines, 52213–52215 Meetings: Establishments of Area Navigation Routes: Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group, 52345– Q–37; Texas, 52229–52230 52346 Establishments of Class E Airspace: Forest, VA, 52230–52231 Food and Drug Administration Restrictions on Operators Employing Former Flight NOTICES Standards Service Aviation Safety Inspectors, 52231– Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 52237 Submissions, and Approvals: Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Data to Support Communications Usability Testing, Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures, 52237– 52332–52333 52241 Tobacco Product Reporting Violation Form, 52333–52334 PROPOSED RULES Meetings: Airworthiness Directives: Arthritis Advisory Committee; Postponement, 52334 Rolls–Royce plcTrent 800 Series Turbofan Engines, 52288–52290 Amendments of Class E Airspace: Foreign Assets Control Office Jacksonville, NC, 52291–52292 NOTICES Luray, VA, 52292–52293 Designation of Additional Entities Pursuant to Executive Pelion, SC, 52290–52291 Order 13405, 52384–52385

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Forest Service NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings: Submissions, and Approvals, 52326–52327 Flathead Resource Advisory Committee, 52303–52304 Terminations of Receivership: Idaho Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee, 52304 Hume Bank, Hume, MO, 52327–52328 Superior Bank, Hinsdale, IL, 52327 Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Federal Energy Regulatory Commission See Children and Families Administration RULES See Food and Drug Administration Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting See Health Resources and Services Administration Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines, 52253–52259 See National Institutes of Health NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Combined Filings, 52323–52325 Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary, Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for 52442–52475 Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary: Green Mountain Energy Co., 52326 Templates, Instructions, and Related Materials under Reliant Energy Northeast LLC, 52325–52326 Public Health Service Act, 52475–52531 NOTICES Federal Highway Administration Single Source Cooperative Agreement Awards: NOTICES Gorgas Memorial Institute of Health Studies, 52328– Buy America Waiver Notifications, 52379–52380 52329 Temporary Closure of I–395 Just South of Conway Street in the City of Baltimore to Vehicular Traffic, etc., 52380– Health Resources and Services Administration 52382 NOTICES Federal Railroad Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 52335 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings: Submissions, and Approvals, 52382 National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, 52335–52336 Federal Reserve System NOTICES Homeland Security Department Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank See Coast Guard Holding Companies, 52328 See U.S. Customs and Border Protection

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:31 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22AUCN.SGM 22AUCN sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Contents V

Housing and Urban Development Department Justice Programs Office NOTICES NOTICES Granting of Additional Waiver to New York CDBG Disaster Vehicular Digital Multimedia Evidence Recording System Recovery Grants; The Drawing Center, 52340–52341 Standard, Certification Program Requirements, etc., 52350 Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Labor Department Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory See Employee Benefits Security Administration Committee, 52312–52313 See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Transportation and Related Equipment Technical See Workers Compensation Programs Office Advisory Committee, 52312 Land Management Bureau Interior Department NOTICES See Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Public Land Orders: Enforcement Alaska; Correction, 52346 See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau Oregon, 52347 See Office of Natural Resources Revenue Washington, 52346–52347 PROPOSED RULES Amendment of Privacy Act Regulations, 52295–52297 Legal Services Corporation NOTICES NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 52341–52344 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52352–52353 Internal Revenue Service RULES Maritime Administration Interest and Penalty Suspension Provisions Under Section NOTICES 6404(g) of the Internal Revenue Code, 52259–52263 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, PROPOSED RULES Submissions, and Approvals, 52382–52383 Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary, 52442–52475 Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary: National Agricultural Statistics Service Templates, Instructions, and Related Materials under NOTICES Public Health Service Act, 52475–52531 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52304–52305 International Trade Administration NOTICES National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Antidumping Duty Investigations; Postponements of NOTICES Preliminary Determinations: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator–Freezers from Submissions, and Approvals, 52383–52384 Republic of Korea and Mexico, 52313 Certain Steel Nails from United Arab Emirates, 52313 Antidumping Duty Orders; Continuations: National Institutes of Health Heavy Forged Hand Tools from People’s Republic of NOTICES China, 52313–52314 Meetings: Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments, Center for Scientific Review, 52336 52314 New Shipper Reviews; Final Rescissions: Fresh Garlic from People’s Republic of China, 52315– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 52317 RULES Fisheries of Northeastern United States: International Trade Commission Spiny Dogfish Fishery; Commercial Period 1 Quota NOTICES Harvested; Closure, 52286 Complaints, 52347–52348 PROPOSED RULES Investigations: Fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Certain Light-Emitting Diodes And Products Containing Allocating Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources; Rockfish Same, 52348–52349 Program Public Workshops, 52301–52302 NOTICES Judicial Conference of the United States Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committees: Northwest Region Vessel Identification Requirements, Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal 52317 Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, 52349– Applications: 52350 Marine Mammals; File No. 16553, 52317 Endangered and Threatened Species: Justice Department Recovery Plans; Availability, 52317–52318 See Justice Programs Office Meetings: NOTICES U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, 52318–52319 Lodgings of Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 52350 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals, 52319

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:31 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22AUCN.SGM 22AUCN sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES VI Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Contents

National Science Foundation Small Business Administration NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Meetings: Current Implementations of Cloud Computing Indicate National Small Business Development Center Advisory New Approach to Security; Assumption Buster Board, 52377–52378 Workshop, 52353–52354 Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic State Department Conservation Act of 1978, 52354–52355 NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Nuclear Regulatory Commission Determinations: NOTICES 5,000 Years of Chinese Jade Featuring Selections from Draft Report; Availability: National Museum of History, etc.; Correction, 52378 NUREG–1482, Revision 2, Guidelines for Inservice Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 52378–52379 Testing at Nuclear Power Plants, 52355–52356 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Statistical Reporting Service Indiana Michigan Power Co., 52356–52357 See National Agricultural Statistics Service License Amendment Requests: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Surface Transportation Board Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, 52357– NOTICES 52362 Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of Railroads, 52384 Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Transportation Department Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See Federal Aviation Administration Submissions, and Approvals: See Federal Highway Administration Coke Oven Emissions Standard, 52350–52352 See Federal Railroad Administration See Maritime Administration Office of Natural Resources Revenue See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES See Surface Transportation Board Intent to Establish an Indian Oil Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, 52294–52295 Treasury Department See Foreign Assets Control Office Personnel Management Office See Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Political Activity; Federal Employees Residing In U.S. Customs and Border Protection Designated Localities, 52287–52288 NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Submissions, and Approvals, 52362–52363 Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred, 52339 Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Veterans Affairs Department Syria; Blocking Government Property and Prohibiting RULES Certain Transactions Related to EO 13582, 52209– Expansion of State Home Care for Parents of a Child Who 52211 Died While Serving in the Armed Forces, 52274–52275 Technical Revisions to Conform to the Caregivers and Rural Housing Service Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, 52272– NOTICES 52274 Funding Availabilities: Section 515 Multi-Family Housing Preservation Workers Compensation Programs Office Revolving Loan Fund Demonstration Program for NOTICES Fiscal Year 2011, 52305–52311 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Securities and Exchange Commission Submissions, and Approvals, 52352 NOTICES Applications: Golub Capital BDC, Inc., et al., 52367–52368 Separate Parts In This Issue Tortoise Power and Energy Infrastructure Fund, Inc. and Tortoise Capital Advisors, LLC, 52363–52367 Part II Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52368–52369 Environmental Protection Agency, 52388–52440 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Y–Exchange, Inc., 52375–52377 Part III Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc., 52373–52374 Health and Human Services Department, 52442–52431 NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 52371–52375 Labor Department, Employee Benefits Security NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 52369–52371 Administration, 52442–52431 Suspension of Trading Orders: Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 52442– Colorado Wyoming Reserve Co., et al., 52377 52431 Consolidated Energy, Inc., et al., 52377

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:31 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22AUCN.SGM 22AUCN sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Contents VII

Reader Aids To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list and notice of recently enacted public laws. archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:31 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\22AUCN.SGM 22AUCN sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES VIII Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Contents

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 252...... 52297 Executive Orders: 50 CFR 13582...... 52209 648...... 52286 5 CFR Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 17...... 52297 679...... 52301 733...... 52287 14 CFR 39 (6 documents) ...... 52213, 52215, 52217, 52220, 52222, 52225 71 (2 documents) ...... 52229, 52230 91...... 52231 97 (2 documents) ...... 52237, 52239 119...... 52231 121...... 52241 125...... 52231 133...... 52231 137...... 52231 141...... 52231 142...... 52231 145...... 52231 147...... 52231 Proposed Rules: 39...... 52288 71 (3 documents) ...... 52290, 52291, 52292 16 CFR 3...... 52249 4...... 52249 18 CFR 260...... 52253 26 CFR 301...... 52259 Proposed Rules: 54 (2 documents) ...... 52442, 52475 602...... 52442 29 CFR Proposed Rules: 2590...... 52442, 52475 30 CFR Proposed Rules: 1206...... 52294 33 CFR 100...... 52263 165 (3 documents) ...... 52266, 52268, 52269 34 CFR 668...... 52271 38 CFR 17...... 52272 51...... 52274 40 CFR 52 (4 documents) ...... 52275, 52278, 52283, 52388 43 CFR Proposed Rules: 2...... 52295 45 CFR Proposed Rules: 147 (2 documents) ...... 52442, 52475 48 CFR Proposed Rules: 204...... 52297

VerDate Mar 15 2010 20:32 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\22AULS.LOC 22AULS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 52209

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 76, No. 162

Monday, August 22, 2011

Title 3— Executive Order 13582 of August 17, 2011

The President Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohib- iting Certain Transactions With Respect to Syria

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emer- gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps with respect to the Government of Syria’s continuing escalation of violence against the people of Syria and with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006, Executive Order 13460 of February 13, 2008, Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011, and Executive Order 13573 of May 18, 2011, hereby order: Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the Government of Syria are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. (b) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Sec- retary of State: (i) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (ii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. Sec. 2. The following are prohibited: (a) new investment in Syria by a United States person, wherever located; (b) the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any services to Syria; (c) the importation into the United States of petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin; (d) any transaction or dealing by a United States person, wherever located, including purchasing, selling, transporting, swapping, brokering, approving, financing, facilitating, or guaranteeing, in or related to petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin; and (e) any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a United States person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 07:39 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\22AUE0.SGM 22AUE0 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS 52210 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Presidential Documents

transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States. Sec. 3. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 and expanded in scope in Executive Order 13572, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order. Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to: (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. Sec. 5. The prohibitions in sections 1 and 2 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order. Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. Sec. 7. Nothing in sections 1 or 2 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof. Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order: (a) the term ‘‘person’’ means an individual or entity; (b) the term ‘‘entity’’ means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; (c) the term ‘‘United States person’’ means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and (d) the term ‘‘Government of Syria’’ means the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities. Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13338 and expanded in scope in Executive Order 13572, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order. Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby

VerDate Mar<15>2010 07:39 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\22AUE0.SGM 22AUE0 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Presidential Documents 52211

directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order. Sec. 11. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Sec. 12. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on August 18, 2011.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 17, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2011–21505 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 07:39 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\22AUE0.SGM 22AUE0 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS OB#1.EPS 52213

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 162

Monday, August 22, 2011

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, next time the LPT module assembly is contains regulatory documents having general DC 20590. disassembled to piece-part level for applicability and legal effect, most of which FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: certain engine conditions only. are keyed to and codified in the Code of Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer, We don’t agree with the request for Federal Regulations, which is published under conditional inspections only. The intent 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England of this AD is to require an FPI of the LPT The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; rotor stage 3 disk forward spacer arm at the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of phone: (781) 238–7735; fax: (781) 238– each shop visit where the LPT module new books are listed in the first FEDERAL 7199; e-mail: [email protected]. assembly is separated in a cyclic REGISTER issue of each week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: manner, regardless of the reason for the separation. The requirements for Discussion conditional piece-part FPI are already DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION We issued a notice of proposed mandated by AD 2011–02–07. We didn’t rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR change the AD. Federal Aviation Administration part 39 to include an airworthiness Request To Add Conditional Inspection directive (AD) that would apply to the 14 CFR Part 39 specified products. That NPRM One commenter, Evergreen [Docket No. FAA–2010–0998; Directorate published in the Federal Register on International Airlines, asked us to Identifier 2010–NE–29–AD; Amendment 39– October 20, 2010, (75 FR 64681). That additionally require the inspection if the 16783; AD 2011–18–01] NPRM proposed to require performing a engine encountered excessive core vibration, or HPT blade separation or RIN 2120–AA64 fluorescent penetrant inspection at every shop visit when the LPT module excessive material loss, or unserviceable LPT blade interlock wear, in addition to Airworthiness Directives; General assembly is separated from the engine. the repetitive inspections proposed in Electric Company (GE) CF6–45 Series Comments the NPRM. and CF6–50 Series Turbofan Engines We gave the public the opportunity to We don’t agree. The requirements for AGENCY: Federal Aviation participate in developing this AD. The conditional piece-part FPI are already Administration (FAA), DOT. following presents the comments mandated by AD 2011–02–07. We didn’t change the AD. ACTION: Final rule. received on the proposal and the FAA’s response to each comment. Request To Change the Compliance SUMMARY: We are adopting a new Time for the Inspection airworthiness directive (AD) for the Support for the NPRM as Written products listed above. This AD requires Two commenters, the National One commenter, Evergreen performing a fluorescent penetrant Transportation Safety Board and The International Airlines, asked us to inspection (FPI) of the low-pressure Boeing Company support the NPRM as require inspections if the LPT rotor turbine (LPT) rotor stage 3 disk at every written. stage 3 disk hasn’t been FPI inspected shop visit at which the LPT module is within the last 2,000 cycles or at all. Request To Define LPT Module Evergreen stated the separation of the separated from the engine. This AD was LPT module is required when the prompted by seven reports of Two commenters, GE and MTU maintenance of certain HPC, combustor, uncontained failures of LPT rotor stage Maintenance Canada, asked us to define and HPT assemblies and parts need to 3 disks and eight reports of cracked LPT ‘‘LPT module.’’ The commenters feel the be performed. Engines removed for rotor stage 3 disks found during shop term LPT module could be confused maintenance of those components visit inspections. We are issuing this AD with the LPT rotor assembly. would require LPT rotor stage 3 disk to prevent LPT rotor separation, which We agree. We changed paragraph (e) cleaning and FPI regardless of the time could result in an uncontained engine of the proposed AD to clarify that the interval since the last FPI per the failure and damage to the airplane. intent of this AD is to inspect the LPT rotor stage 3 disk when the LPT module proposed AD, which would be an DATES: This AD is effective September assembly separates from the engine for unnecessary burden on the operators. 26, 2011. maintenance, and added new We partially agree. We agree with the ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD paragraphs (i) and (i)(1) that define the request for a certain number of cycles docket on the Internet at http:// LPT module assembly. since the last FPI to exclude the part www.regulations.gov; or in person at the from mandatory inspection. However, Docket Management Facility between 9 Request To Require Only Conditional we do not find the number of 2,000 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Inspection cycles since last inspection (CSLI) Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD One commenter, MTU Maintenance appropriate to ensure a desired level of docket contains this AD, the regulatory Canada, asked us to change the safety. We find that an acceptable level evaluation, any comments received, and compliance time for the inspection. of safety will be retained when the disk other information. The address for the MTU stated the proposed AD requires FPI inspection is skipped during the Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is stage 3 disk FPI at piece-part level shop visit if the disk was inspected Document Management Facility, U.S. regardless of the part utilization (cycles- within the last 1,000 cycles. We Department of Transportation, Docket since-last inspection) or operational changed paragraphs (f) and (g) to ‘‘(f) At Operations, M–30, West Building history since the last inspection. MTU the next shop visit after the effective Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 asked us to change the inspection to the date of this AD, clean and fluorescent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52214 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

penetrant inspect the LPT rotor stage 3 state that cleaning the stage 3 disk and determined that air safety and the disk forward spacer arm, including the performing an FPI are done at the piece- public interest require adopting the AD use of a wet abrasive blast to eliminate part level, and that the costs of with the changes described previously. residual or background fluorescence disassembling and reassembling the LPT We also determined that these before inspecting. You can find module assembly, and of the changes will not increase the economic guidance on cleaning the disk and inspections required by the engine burden on any operator or increase the performing the FPI in the CF6–50 manual for reinstalling the stage 3 scope of the AD. Engine Manual, GEK 50481 72–57–02.’’ blades must be added to the cost of Costs of Compliance and ‘‘(g) Thereafter, clean and inspect cleaning and inspecting the disk. the LPT rotor stage 3 disk forward We don’t agree. Our estimated cost is We estimate that this AD will affect spacer arm, as specified in paragraph (f), the direct cost to comply with the AD, 387 engines installed on airplanes of at each engine shop visit that occurs and doesn’t include preparatory U.S. registry. We also estimate that it after 1,000 cycles since the last FPI of disassembly or reinstallation. We didn’t will take about 7 work-hours per engine the LPT rotor stage 3 disk forward change the AD. to clean and FPI the disk 387 engines. spacer arm.’’ We also added paragraphs The average labor rate is $85 per work- (i) and (i)(2) that define an engine shop Request To Change Paragraph (f) of the hour. No parts will be required. Based visit as follows: ‘‘An engine shop visit Proposed AD on these figures, we estimate the total is the induction of an engine into the One commenter, GE, asked us to cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be shop for maintenance involving the change paragraph (f) of the proposed AD $230,265. separation of the turbine mid-frame to use the words ‘‘including the use of’’ Authority for This Rulemaking forward flange from the compressor rear in place of the word ‘‘using’’, where frame aft flange, except that the cleaning the LPT rotor stage 3 disk with Title 49 of the United States Code separation of these engine flanges solely wet-abrasive blast to eliminate residual specifies the FAA’s authority to issue for the purposes of transportation or background fluorescence is required. rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, without subsequent engine maintenance GE doesn’t consider a wet-abrasive blast section 106, describes the authority of does not constitute an engine shop alone sufficient to clean the LPT rotor the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: visit.’’ stage 3 disk to allow performance of the Aviation Programs, describes in more FPI of the inner diameter of the forward detail the scope of the Agency’s Request To Change the Type of cone body of the LPT rotor stage 3 disk. authority. Inspection We agree. We changed paragraph (f) of We are issuing this rulemaking under One commenter, GE, asked us to the proposed AD from ‘‘Clean the LPT the authority described in Subtitle VII, consider changing the type of inspection rotor stage 3 disk, using a wet abrasive Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: from FPI to ultrasonic inspection (USI). blast to eliminate residual or ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that GE stated that they have developed a background fluorescence. You can find section, Congress charges the FAA with USI technique and tooling which allow guidance on cleaning the disk in the promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in inspecting the LPT rotor stage 3 disk cleaning procedure of CF6–50 Engine air commerce by prescribing regulations forward spacer arm without piece part Manual, GEK 50481 72–57–02.’’ to ‘‘At for practices, methods, and procedures disassembly of the LPT. Implementing the next engine shop visit after the the Administrator finds necessary for the USI will detect cracks in the forward effective date of this AD, clean and safety in air commerce. This regulation spacer arm, which might propagate fluorescent-penetrant inspect the LPT is within the scope of that authority during operation and would be a rotor stage 3 disk forward spacer arm, because it addresses an unsafe condition suitable alternative to the piece-part including the use of a wet-abrasive blast that is likely to exist or develop on disassembly, cleaning, and FPI of the to eliminate residual or background products identified in this rulemaking forward spacer arm in many situations. fluorescence before inspecting. You can action. We don’t agree. We don’t believe USI find guidance on cleaning the disk and Regulatory Findings technique specified in GE SB CF6–50 S/ performing the FPI in the CF6–50 B 72–1309 is a sufficient means of Engine Manual, GEK 50481 72–57–02.’’ This AD will not have federalism detecting flaws or microcracks on the implications under Executive Order inner surface of the LPT rotor stage 3 Request To Include Definitions for 13132. This AD will not have a disk forward spacer arm. Paragraph E.(5) Cleaning and FPI of the LPT Rotor substantial direct effect on the States, on of SB CF6–50 S/B 72–1309 states ‘‘The Stage 3 Disk the relationship between the national new USI probe was specifically One commenter, Evergreen government and the States, or on the designed to detect flaws 0.030 inch International Airlines, asked us to add distribution of power and (0.76 mm) deep or greater in the forward definitions of ‘‘cleaning the LPT rotor responsibilities among the various spacer arm of the stage 3 LPTR disk.’’ stage 3 disk’’ and ‘‘FPI of the LPT rotor levels of government. We find that a 0.030-inch deep surface stage 3 disk,’’ with specific engine For the reasons discussed above, I crack size is unacceptable in that manual subtask references, to the certify that this AD: location, as it would have already proposed AD. The commenter states (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory propagated in a high-cycle fatigue mode. that the definitions will clarify the action’’ under Executive Order 12866, The intent of this AD is to detect cracks actions required by the proposed AD. (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under before they propagate. We made no We don’t agree. The reference DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures change to the proposed AD. provided in the proposed AD is (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), sufficient to define the required actions. (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation Request To Change the Costs of We made no changes to the proposed in Alaska, and Compliance AD. (4) Will not have a significant Two commenters, MTU Canada and economic impact, positive or negative, FedEx, asked us to re-evaluate the Costs Conclusion on a substantial number of small entities of Compliance for the actions required We reviewed the relevant data, under the criteria of the Regulatory by the proposed AD. The commenters considered the comments received, and Flexibility Act.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52215

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Affected ADs Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation § 39.13 [Amended] (b) None. safety, Incorporation by reference, Applicability Safety. ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding (c) This AD applies to General Electric Adoption of the Amendment the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Company (GE) CF6–45A, CF6–45A2, CF6– Accordingly, under the authority 50A, CF6–50C, CF6–50CA, CF6–50C1, CF6– delegated to me by the Administrator, 2011–18–01 General Electric Company: 50C2, CF6–50C2B, CF6–50C2D, CF6–50E, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as Amendment 39–16783; Docket No. CF6–50E1, and CF6–50E2 series turbofan follows: FAA–2010–0998; Directorate Identifier engines, including engines marked on the 2010–NE–29–AD. engine data plate as CF6–50C2–F and CF6– PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Effective Date 50C2–R, with a low-pressure turbine (LPT) DIRECTIVES rotor stage 3 disk that has a part number (P/ (a) This AD is effective September 26, N) listed in Table 1 of this AD installed. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 2011. continues to read as follows:

TABLE 1—LPT ROTOR STAGE 3 DISK P/NS

1473M90P01 1473M90P02 1473M90P03 1473M90P04 1479M75P01 1479M75P02 1479M75P03 1479M75P04 1479M75P05 1479M75P06 1479M75P07 1479M75P08 1479M75P09 1479M75P11 1479M75P13 1479M75P14 9061M23P06 9061M23P07 9061M23P08 9061M23P09 9061M23P10 9061M23P12 9061M23P14 9061M23P15 9061M23P16 9224M75P01

Unsafe Condition involving the separation of the turbine mid- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (d) This AD results from seven reports of frame forward flange from the compressor uncontained failures of LPT rotor stage 3 rear frame aft flange, except that the Federal Aviation Administration disks and eight reports of cracked LPT rotor separation of these engine flanges solely for stage 3 disks found during shop visit the purposes of transportation without 14 CFR Part 39 inspections. We are issuing this AD to subsequent engine maintenance does not prevent LPT rotor separation, which could constitute an engine shop visit. [Docket No. FAA–2011–0187; Directorate result in an uncontained engine failure and Identifier 2011–NE–07–AD; Amendment 39– damage to the airplane. Alternative Methods of Compliance 16784; AD 2011–18–02] Compliance (j) The Manager, Engine Certification (e) You are responsible for having the Office, has the authority to approve RIN 2120–AA64 actions required by this AD performed at alternative methods of compliance for this each shop visit after the effective date of this AD if requested using the procedures found Airworthiness Directives; General AD, at which the LPT module assembly is in 14 CFR 39.19. Electric Company CF34–10E2A1; separated from the engine. CF34–10E5; CF34–10E5A1; CF34– Related Information 10E6; CF34–10E6A1; CF34–10E7; and Initial Inspection (k) For more information about this AD, CF34–10E7–B Turbofan Engines (f) At the next shop visit after the effective contact Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace date of this AD, clean and fluorescent- Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, AGENCY: Federal Aviation penetrant inspect the LPT rotor stage 3 disk Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New Administration (FAA), DOT. forward spacer arm, including the use of a England Executive Park, Burlington, MA ACTION: wet-abrasive blast to eliminate residual or Final rule. background fluorescence before inspecting. 01803; phone: (781) 238–7735; fax: (781) SUMMARY: We are adopting a new You can find guidance on cleaning the disk 238–7199; e-mail: [email protected]. airworthiness directive (AD) for the and performing the FPI in the CF6–50 Engine Material Incorporated by Reference Manual, GEK 50481 72–57–02. products listed above with certain part (l) None. number (P/N) fan rotor spinners Repetitive Inspection Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on installed. This AD requires removing (g) Thereafter, clean and inspect the LPT August 15, 2011. from service certain fan rotor blade rotor stage 3 disk forward spacer arm, as retainers, and removing from service the Peter A. White, specified in paragraph (f) of this AD, at each fan rotor spinner support that was engine shop visit that occurs after 1,000 Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, installed with those fan rotor blade cycles since the last FPI of the LPT rotor Aircraft Certification Service. retainers. This AD was prompted by a stage 3 disk forward spacer arm. [FR Doc. 2011–21312 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] (h) If a crack or a band of fluorescence is fan rotor spinner support found cracked present, remove the disk from service. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P at the attachment lugs. We are issuing this AD to prevent high-cycle fatigue Definitions cracking of the fan rotor spinner support (i) For the purpose of this AD: attachment lugs, leading to separation of (1) The LPT module assembly is defined as the fan rotor spinner assembly, consisting of turbine mid-frame, LPT stage 1 uncontained failure of the engine, and nozzle, LPT stator cases and vanes, LPT rotor, and turbine rear frame. damage to the airplane. (2) An engine shop visit is the induction DATES: This AD is effective September of an engine into the shop for maintenance 26, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52216 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

ADDRESSES: For service information Comments Regulatory Findings identified in this AD, contact GE– We gave the public the opportunity to This AD will not have federalism Aviation, M/D Rm. 285, One Neumann participate in developing this AD. We implications under Executive Order Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: received one comment which is 13132. This AD will not have a 513–552–3272; e-mail: presented below. substantial direct effect on the States, on [email protected]. You may review the relationship between the national copies of the referenced service Request for Compliance Clarification government and the States, or on the information at the FAA, Engine & One commenter, Regionla Compagnie distribution of power and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Aerienne Europeene, requests that we responsibilities among the various Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For clarify the AD as to what parts are levels of government. information on the availability of this allowed to be reinstalled when affected For the reasons discussed above, I material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. parts are removed for either scheduled certify that this AD: Examining the AD Docket or unscheduled maintenance before the (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory AD compliance time is reached. action’’ under Executive Order 12866, You may examine the AD docket on We do not agree. When the affected (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the Internet at http:// parts are removed from the engine, DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures www.regulations.gov; or in person at the paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD are (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), Docket Management Facility between 9 (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation clear that those parts are not to be a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through in Alaska, and reinstalled into the engine. Any FAA- Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD (4) Will not have a significant approved part except those prohibited docket contains this AD, the regulatory economic impact, positive or negative, by paragraphs (h) and (i), is eligible for evaluation, any comments received, and on a substantial number of small entities installation. We did not change the AD. other information. The address for the under the criteria of the Regulatory Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is Conclusion Flexibility Act. Document Management Facility, U.S. We reviewed the relevant data, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Department of Transportation, Docket considered the comment received, and Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Operations, M–30, West Building determined that air safety and the Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 safety, Incorporation by reference, public interest require adopting the AD Safety. New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, as proposed. DC 20590. Adoption of the Amendment Costs of Compliance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Accordingly, under the authority Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine We estimate that this AD will affect delegated to me by the Administrator, Certification Office, FAA, 12 New 164 engines installed on airplanes of the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as England Executive Park, Burlington, MA U.S. registry. We also estimate that it follows: 01803; phone: 781–238–7756; fax: 781– will take about 2 work-hours per engine 238–7199; e-mail: [email protected]. to perform the actions required by this PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AD, and that the average labor rate is DIRECTIVES $85 per work-hour. If all removed parts Discussion get replaced, required parts will cost ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 We issued a notice of proposed about $10,458 per engine. Based on continues to read as follows: rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR these figures, we estimate the total cost Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. part 39 to include an AD that would of the AD to U.S. operators to be § 39.13 [Amended] apply to the specified products. That $1,742,992. NPRM published in the Federal ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Authority for This Rulemaking Register on May 11, 2011 (76 FR 27282). the following new airworthiness Investigation of a General Electric Title 49 of the United States Code directive (AD): Company CF34–10E turbofan engine specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 2011–18–02 General Electric Company: experiencing high fan frame vibrations rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Amendment 39–16784 ; Docket No. led to removal of the fan rotor spinner. section 106, describes the authority of FAA–2011–0187; Directorate Identifier Eight of the twelve attachment lugs on the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 2011–NE–07–AD. the fan rotor spinner support were Aviation Programs, describes in more Effective Date found cracked. The cause of the detail the scope of the Agency’s (a) This AD is effective September 26, vibration was determined to be a non- authority. 2011. synchronous vibration induced by a We are issuing this rulemaking under spinner redesign that removed an the authority described in subtitle VII, Affected ADs interference between the fan blade part A, subpart III, section 44701: (b) None. retainers and the spinner. That NPRM ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that Applicability proposed to require removing from section, Congress charges the FAA with (c) This AD applies to General Electric service certain fan rotor blade retainers, promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in Company (GE) CF34–10E2A1; CF34–10E5; and removing from service the fan rotor air commerce by prescribing regulations CF34–10E5A1; CF34–10E6; CF34–10E6A1; spinner support that was installed with for practices, methods, and procedures CF34–10E7; and CF34–10E7–B turbofan those fan rotor blade retainers. We are the Administrator finds necessary for engines, with a fan rotor spinner part number issuing this AD to prevent high-cycle safety in air commerce. This regulation (P/N) 2050M34G03; 2050M34G04; fatigue cracking of the fan rotor spinner is within the scope of that authority 2050M34G05; 2050M34G06; 2437M60G01; or support attachment lugs, leading to because it addresses an unsafe condition 2437M60G02, installed. separation of the fan rotor spinner that is likely to exist or develop on Unsafe Condition assembly, uncontained failure of the products identified in this rulemaking (d) This AD was prompted by a fan rotor engine, and damage to the airplane. action. spinner support found cracked at the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52217

attachment lugs. We are issuing this AD to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: prevent high-cycle fatigue cracking of the fan Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, rotor spinner support attachment lugs, Federal Aviation Administration International Branch, ANM–116, leading to separation of the fan rotor spinner Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, assembly, uncontained failure of the engine, 14 CFR Part 39 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, and damage to the airplane. [Docket No. FAA–2011–0385; Directorate Washington 98057–3356; telephone Compliance Identifier 2010–NM–256–AD; Amendment (425) 227–1138; fax (425) 227–1149. 39–16780; AD 2011–17–16] (e) Comply with this AD within 1,800 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hours-in-service after the effective date of RIN 2120–AA64 Discussion this AD, unless already done. Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model We issued a notice of proposed Removal of Fan Rotor Blade Retainers A330–200, A330–300, A340–300, A340– rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR (f) Remove from service the 24 fan rotor 500, and A340–600 Series Airplanes part 39 to include an AD that would blade retainers, P/N 2050M56P02. AGENCY: Federal Aviation apply to the specified products. That Removal of Fan Rotor Spinner Support Administration (FAA), Department of NPRM was published in the Federal (g) Remove from service the fan rotor Transportation (DOT). Register on April 26, 2011 (76 FR spinner support that operated with the fan ACTION: Final rule. 23218). That NPRM proposed to correct rotor blade retainers removed in paragraph (f) an unsafe condition for the specified of this AD. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new products. The MCAI states: airworthiness directive (AD) for the Installation Prohibition During a Back-up Control Module (BCM) products listed above. This AD results retrofit campaign in accordance with (h) After the effective date of this AD, do from mandatory continuing [European Aviation Safety Agency] (EASA) not install any fan rotor blade retainer, P/N airworthiness information (MCAI) AD 2006–0313 requirements, some BCMs 2050M56P02, into any engine. Do not originated by an aviation authority of have been found with loose gyrometer attempt to repair, make serviceable, or re- another country to identify and correct screws. install, this part. an unsafe condition on an aviation The gyrometer is installed on the DELRIN (i) After the effective date of this AD, do product. The MCAI describes the unsafe plate by internal screws and the DELRIN not install any fan rotor spinner support condition as: plate is installed on BCM casing by external removed in paragraph (g) of this AD, into any screws. During a Back-up Control Module (BCM) Investigations done by the BCM engine. Do not attempt to repair, make retrofit campaign * * *, some BCMs have manufacturer SAGEM have shown that the serviceable, or re-install, this part. been found with loose gyrometer screws. root cause of these events is a lack of design * * * When the aeroplane is in control Alternative Methods of Compliance robustness of the BCM[.] When the aeroplane back up configuration (considered to be an (AMOCs) is in control back up configuration extremely remote case), an oscillation of the (considered to be an extremely remote case), (j) The Manager, Engine Certification BCM output order may cause degradation of an oscillation of the BCM output order may Office, FAA, has the authority to approve the BCM piloting laws, potentially leading to cause degradation of the BCM piloting laws, AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the erratic motion of the rudder and possible potentially leading to erratic motion of the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. subsequent impact on the Dutch Roll, which rudder and possible subsequent impact on constitutes an unsafe condition. the Dutch Roll, which constitutes an unsafe Related Information * * * * * condition. (k) For more information about this AD, * * * [S]everal Pedal Feel Trim Units EASA AD 2008–0131 was issued to contact John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, (PFTU) have been found with loose or broken prohibit aeroplane dispatch with FCPC3 Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New screws during the accomplishment of [flight control primary computer] inoperative England Executive Park, Burlington, MA maintenance tasks on A330 fitted with (from GO IF to NO GO) as an interim electrical rudder and A340–600. The loose or 01803; phone: 781–238–7756; fax: 781–238– solution, limited to A330 and A340–300 failed screws could lead to the loss of the 7199; e-mail: [email protected]. fitted with electrical rudder. coupling between the Rotary Variable After EASA AD 2008–0131 issuance, (l) Refer to GE Service Bulletin No. CF34– Differential Transducer (RVDT) shaft and the several Pedal Feel Trim Units (PFTU) have 10E S/B 72–0186, for related information. PFTU shaft, and consequently to a potential been found with loose or broken screws Contact GE–Aviation, M/D Rm. 285, One rudder runaway when the BCM is activated. during the accomplishment of maintenance Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, * * * * * tasks on A330 fitted with electrical rudder phone: 513–552–3272; e-mail: The unsafe condition is loss of control and A340–600. The loose or failed screws [email protected], for a copy of this service of the airplane. We are issuing this AD could lead to the loss of the coupling information. You may review copies of the to require actions to correct the unsafe between the Rotary Variable Differential referenced service information at the FAA, condition on these products. Transducer (RVDT) shaft and the PFTU shaft, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New and consequently to a potential rudder DATES: This AD becomes effective England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For runaway when the BCM is activated. September 26, 2011. information on the availability of this EASA AD 2009–0153 retained the The Director of the Federal Register requirements of EASA AD 2008–0131 and material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. approved the incorporation by reference extended the applicability to A340–500/600 Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on of certain publications listed in this AD aeroplanes. August 15, 2011. as of September 26, 2011. This [EASA] AD, which supersedes EASA AD 2009–0153 retaining its requirements, Peter A. White, ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD requires the installation of: Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, docket on the Internet at http:// —a new BCM on A330 and A340–200/–300 Aircraft Certification Service. www.regulations.gov or in person at the series aeroplanes fitted with electrical [FR Doc. 2011–21313 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] U.S. Department of Transportation, rudder, and BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Docket Operations, M–30, West —an improved PFTU on A330 and A340– Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 200/–300 series aeroplanes fitted with an 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., electrical rudder and A340–500/&600 Washington, DC. series aeroplanes,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52218 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

which, once installed, eliminate the root We are issuing this rulemaking under PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS cause of the unsafe condition and cancel the the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, DIRECTIVES operational limitation. Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: * * * * * General requirements.’’ Under that ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 The unsafe condition is loss of control section, Congress charges the FAA with continues to read as follows: of the airplane. You may obtain further promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in information by examining the MCAI in air commerce by prescribing regulations Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. the AD docket. for practices, methods, and procedures § 39.13 [Amended] Comments the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation We gave the public the opportunity to ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding is within the scope of that authority participate in developing this AD. We the following new AD: because it addresses an unsafe condition received no comments on the NPRM or 2011–17–16 Airbus: Amendment 39–16780. that is likely to exist or develop on on the determination of the cost to the Docket No. FAA–2011–0385; Directorate products identified in this rulemaking Identifier 2010–NM–256–AD. public. action. Effective Date Conclusion Regulatory Findings (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) We reviewed the available data and becomes effective September 26, 2011. determined that air safety and the We determined that this AD will not public interest require adopting the AD have federalism implications under Affected ADs as proposed. Executive Order 13132. This AD will (b) None. not have a substantial direct effect on Applicability Differences Between This AD and the the States, on the relationship between MCAI or Service Information the national government and the States, (c) This AD applies to airplanes specified We have reviewed the MCAI and or on the distribution of power and in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this related service information and, in AD, certificated in any category. responsibilities among the various (1) Airbus Model A330–201, –202, –203, general, agree with their substance. But levels of government. –223, –223F, –243, –243F, –301, -302, –303, we might have found it necessary to use For the reasons discussed above, I –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 different words from those in the MCAI certify this AD: airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers on to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 1. Is not a ’’significant regulatory which Airbus modification 49144 (install operators and is enforceable. In making action’’ under Executive Order 12866; electrical rudder) has been embodied in these changes, we do not intend to differ production, except those on which Airbus substantively from the information 2. Is not a ’’significant rule’’ under the modification 58118 and Airbus modification provided in the MCAI and related DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 200667 have been embodied in production. service information. (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (2) Airbus Model A340–311, –312, and We might also have required different 3. Will not have a significant –313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial actions in this AD from those in the economic impact, positive or negative, numbers on which Airbus modification MCAI in order to follow our FAA on a substantial number of small entities 49144 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus modification policies. Any such differences are under the criteria of the Regulatory 58118 and Airbus modification 200667 have highlighted in a Note within the AD. Flexibility Act. been embodied in production. Costs of Compliance We prepared a regulatory evaluation (3) Airbus Model A340–541 and –642 of the estimated costs to comply with airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, We estimate that this AD will affect this AD and placed it in the AD docket. except those on which Airbus modification 46 products of U.S. registry. We also 200667 has been embodied in production. estimate that it will take about 17 work- Examining the AD Docket hours per product to comply with the Subject You may examine the AD docket on basic requirements of this AD. The (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of the Internet at http:// average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. America Code 27: Flight Controls. www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Required parts will cost about $0 per Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. Reason product. Where the service information and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, (e) The mandatory continuing lists required parts costs that are except Federal holidays. The AD docket airworthiness information (MCAI) states: covered under warranty, we have contains the NPRM, the regulatory During a Back-up Control Module (BCM) assumed that there will be no charge for evaluation, any comments received, and retrofit campaign * * *, some BCMs have these parts. As we do not control been found with loose gyrometer screws. other information. The street address for warranty coverage for affected parties, * * * When the aeroplane is in control some parties may incur costs higher the Docket Operations office (telephone back up configuration (considered to be an ADDRESSES than estimated here. Based on these (800) 647–5527) is in the extremely remote case), an oscillation of the figures, we estimate the cost of this AD section. Comments will be available in BCM output order may cause degradation of to the U.S. operators to be $66,470, or the AD docket shortly after receipt. the BCM piloting laws, potentially leading to erratic motion of the rudder and possible $1,445 per product. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 subsequent impact on the Dutch Roll, which Authority for This Rulemaking Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation constitutes an unsafe condition. Title 49 of the United States Code safety, Incorporation by reference, * * * * * specifies the FAA’s authority to issue Safety. * * * [S]everal Pedal Feel Trim Units rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, (PFTU) have been found with loose or broken Adoption of the Amendment screws during the accomplishment of section 106, describes the authority of maintenance tasks on A330 fitted with the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: Accordingly, under the authority electrical rudder and A340–600. The loose or Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more delegated to me by the Administrator, failed screws could lead to the loss of the detail the scope of the Agency’s the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as coupling between the Rotary Variable authority. follows: Differential Transducer (RVDT) shaft and the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52219

PFTU shaft, and consequently to a potential airplanes: Within 48 months after the (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance rudder runaway when the BCM is activated. effective date of this AD, do the actions (AMOCs): The Manager, International * * * * * specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane The unsafe condition is loss of control of AD: Directorate, FAA, has the authority to the airplane. (1) Modify the BCM, in accordance with approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested the Accomplishment Instruction of Airbus using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Compliance Service Bulletin A330–27–3161 (for Model In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your (f) You are responsible for having the A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –223F, –243, request to your principal inspector or local actions required by this AD performed within –243F, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –341, Flight Standards District Office, as the compliance times specified, unless the –343 airplanes) or A340–27–4160 (for Model appropriate. If sending information directly actions have already been done. A340–311, –312, and –313 airplanes), both to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: dated November 6, 2009. Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Dispatch Prohibition (2) Modify the PFTU, in accordance with International Branch, ANM–116, Transport (g) As of the effective date of this AD, the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind dispatch with the flight control primary Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3169 Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– computer (FCPC) 3 ‘‘PRIM 3’’ inoperative is or A340–27–4167, both dated May 3, 2010, 3356; telephone (425) 227–1138; fax (425) prohibited unless the applicable as applicable. 227–1149. Information may be e-mailed to: modifications required by this AD have been (j) For Airbus Model 340–541 and –642 9–ANM–116–AMOC–[email protected]. done within the compliance time in this AD. airplanes: Within 48 months after the Before using any approved AMOC, notify effective date of this AD, modify the PFTU, Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision your appropriate principal inspector, or in accordance with the Accomplishment lacking a principal inspector, the manager of (h) Within 30 days after the effective date Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service the local flight standards district office/ of this AD, revise the Limitations section of Bulletin A340–27–5053, dated May 3, 2010. certificate holding district office. The AMOC the Airbus A330 or A340 AFM, as applicable, Terminating Action approval letter must specifically reference to include the following statement:’’Dispatch this AD. with the flight control primary computer (k) Modifying both the BCM and PFTU as (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement (FCPC) 3 ‘‘PRIM 3’’ inoperative is required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this in this AD to obtain corrective actions from prohibited.’’ This may be done by inserting AD terminates the requirements of a manufacturer or other source, use these a copy of this AD into the applicable AFM. paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective Note 1: When a statement identical to that (l) Modifying the PFTU as required by actions are considered FAA-approved if they in paragraph (h) of this AD has been included paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the are approved by the State of Design Authority in the general revisions of the applicable requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this (or their delegated agent). You are required AFM, the general revisions may be inserted AD. to assure the product is airworthy before it into the applicable AFM, and the copy of this FAA AD Differences is returned to service. AD may be removed from the applicable AFM. Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI Related Information and/or service information as follows: No (n) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Modification differences. Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2010– (i) For Airbus Model A330–201, –202, 0191, dated September 27, 2010 [Corrected –203, –223, –223F, –243, –243F, –301, –302, Other FAA AD Provisions October 7, 2010], and the service bulletins –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, –343, (m) The following provisions also apply to listed in table 1 of this AD, for related and A340–311, –312, and –313 series this AD: information.

TABLE 1—AIRBUS SERVICE BULLETINS

Document Date

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3169 ...... May 3, 2010. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–27–4167 ...... May 3, 2010. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–27–5053 ...... May 3, 2010. Airbus Service Bulletin A330–27–3161 ...... November 6, 2009. Airbus Service Bulletin A340–27–4160 ...... November 6, 2009.

Material Incorporated by Reference (2) For service information identified in availability of this material at the FAA, call (o) You must use the service information this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness 425–227–1221. Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, (4) You may also review copies of the contained in table 2 of this AD, as applicable, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 service information that is incorporated by to do the actions required by this AD, unless 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; e-mail reference at the National Archives and the AD specifies otherwise. airworthiness.A330–[email protected]; Records Administration (NARA). For (1) The Director of the Federal Register Internet http://www.airbus.com. information on the availability of this approved the incorporation by reference of (3) You may review copies of the service material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go this service information under 5 U.S.C. information at the FAA, Transport Airplane to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, code_of_federal_regulations/ Washington. For information on the ibr_locations.html.

TABLE 2—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Document Date

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52220 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE—Continued

Document Date

Airbus Service Bulletin A340–27–4160 ...... November 6, 2009.

Issued in Renton, Washington on August Document Management Facility, U.S. on the determination of the cost to the 10, 2011. Department of Transportation, Docket public. Ali Bahrami, Operations, M–30, West Building Conclusion Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 Aircraft Certification Service. New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, We reviewed the available data and [FR Doc. 2011–21152 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] DC 20590. determined that air safety and the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P For service information identified in public interest require adopting the AD this AD, contact EMBRAER Empresa as proposed. Brasileira de Aerona´utica S.A., Phenom Differences Between This AD and the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maintenance Support, Av. Brig. Farina Lima, 2170, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, MCAI or Service Information Federal Aviation Administration CEP: 12227–901—PO Box: 36/2, We have reviewed the MCAI and BRASIL; telephone: ++55 12 3927–5383; related service information and, in 14 CFR Part 39 fax: ++55 12 3927–2619; e-mail: general, agree with their substance. But [Docket No. FAA–2011–0088 Directorate phenom.reliability@ embraer.com.br; we might have found it necessary to use Identifier 2010–CE–072–AD; Amendment Internet: http://www.embraer.com.br. different words from those in the MCAI 39–16779; AD 2011–17–15] You may review copies of the to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. referenced service information at the operators and is enforceable. In making RIN 2120–AA64 FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 these changes, we do not intend to differ Airworthiness Directives; Embraer— Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. substantively from the information Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica For information on the availability of provided in the MCAI and related S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB–500 this material at the FAA, call (816) 329– service information. Airplanes 4148. We might also have required different FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim actions in this AD from those in the AGENCY: Federal Aviation Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Administration (FAA), Department of Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Any such differences are highlighted in Transportation (DOT). Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; a NOTE within the AD. ACTION: Final Rule. telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329–4090; e-mail: Costs of Compliance SUMMARY: We are adopting a new [email protected]. We estimate that this AD will affect airworthiness directive (AD) for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 101 products of U.S. registry. products listed above. This AD results We estimate that 85 products of U.S. from mandatory continuing Discussion registry will require the modification airworthiness information (MCAI) We issued a notice of proposed issued by an aviation authority of and that it will take about 9.5 work- rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR hours per product to comply with the another country to identify and correct part 39 to include an AD that would an unsafe condition on an aviation modification requirements of this AD. apply to the specified products. That The average labor rate is $85 per work- product. The MCAI describes the unsafe NPRM was published in the Federal condition as: hour. Required parts will cost about Register on May 10, 2011 (76 FR 26959). $1,550 per product. It has been found that moisture may That NPRM proposed to correct an Based on these figures, we estimate accumulate and freeze, under certain unsafe condition for the specified the cost of the modification requirement conditions, in the gap between the AOA vane products. The MCAI states: base assembly and the stationary ring of the of this AD on U.S. operators to be sensor’s body. If freezing occurs both AOA It has been found that moisture may $200,387.50, or $2,357.50 per product. sensors may get stuck and the Stall Warning accumulate and freeze, under certain We estimate that 101 products of U.S. Protection System (SWPS) will be no longer conditions, in the gap between the AOA vane registry will require an inspection for effective without alerting. This may result in base assembly and the stationary ring of the sealant application. We estimate it will sensor’s body. If freezing occurs both AOA inadvertent aerodynamic stall and loss of take .5 hour to comply with the controllability of the airplane. sensors may get stuck and the Stall Warning Protection System (SWPS) will be no longer inspection requirements of this AD. We are issuing this AD to require effective without alerting. This may result in Based on these figures, we estimate actions to correct the unsafe condition inadvertent aerodynamic stall and loss of the cost of the inspection for the sealant on these products. controllability of the airplane. application requirement of this AD on DATES: This AD becomes effective Since this condition may occur in other U.S. operators to be $4,292.50, or $42.50 September 26, 2011. airplanes of the same type and affects flight per product. safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, On September 26, 2011, the Director sufficient reason exists to request compliance In addition, we estimate that any of the Federal Register approved the with this AD in the indicated time limit. necessary follow-on actions will take incorporation by reference of certain about 1.5 work-hours and require parts publications listed in this AD. Comments costing $50, for a cost of $177.50 per ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD We gave the public the opportunity to product. We have no way of docket on the Internet at http:// participate in developing this AD. We determining the number of products www.regulations.gov or in person at received no comments on the NPRM or that may need these actions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52221

Authority for This Rulemaking List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 base assembly and the stationary ring of the sensor’s body. If freezing occurs both AOA Title 49 of the United States Code Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation sensors may get stuck and the Stall Warning specifies the FAA’s authority to issue safety, Incorporation by reference, Protection System (SWPS) will be no longer rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Safety. effective without alerting. This may result in section 106, describes the authority of Adoption of the Amendment inadvertent aerodynamic stall and loss of the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: controllability of the airplane. Accordingly, under the authority Since this condition may occur in other Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more delegated to me by the Administrator, airplanes of the same type and affects flight detail the scope of the Agency’s the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, authority. follows: sufficient reason exists to request compliance We are issuing this rulemaking under with this AD in the indicated time limit. the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS The MCAI requires replacement of both Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: DIRECTIVES Angle of Attack (AOA) sensors and cover General requirements.’’ Under that plates, inspection of the sensor area, and, if section, Congress charges the FAA with ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 needed, application of sealant between the AOA covers and the AOA sensors. promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in continues to read as follows: air commerce by prescribing regulations Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Actions and Compliance for practices, methods, and procedures (f) Unless already done, do the following the Administrator finds necessary for § 39.13 [Amended] actions: safety in air commerce. This regulation ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding (1) For group I airplanes: Within 300 hours is within the scope of that authority the following new AD: time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date because it addresses an unsafe condition of this AD or within 12 months after the 2011–17–15 Embraer—Empresa Brasileira effective date of this AD, whichever comes that is likely to exist or develop on de Aeronautica S.A.: Amendment 39– first, do the following actions following part products identified in this rulemaking 16779; Docket No. FAA–2011–0088; I of PHENOM Service Bulletin SB No.: 500– action. Directorate Identifier 2010–CE–072–AD. 27–0006, Revision No.: 02, dated January 14, Regulatory Findings Effective Date 2011: (i) Replace the left hand (LH) and the right (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) hand (RH) AOA sensors P/N C–100117–2 We determined that this AD will not becomes effective September 26, 2011. have federalism implications under with LH and RH AOA sensors P/N C– Affected ADs 100117–3. Executive Order 13132. This AD will (ii) Replace the LH cover plate P/N 500– not have a substantial direct effect on (b) None. 01702–401 and the RH cover plate P/N 500– the States, on the relationship between Applicability 01702–402 with LH cover plate P/N 500– the national government and the States, 01702–403 and RH cover plate P/N 500– or on the distribution of power and (c) This AD applies to the following 01702–404. airplanes, certificated in any category: (iii) If, before the effective date of this AD, responsibilities among the various (1) Group I airplanes: levels of government. the replacement actions required in Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD For the reasons discussed above, I (EMBRAER) EMB–500 airplanes, serial have already been done following PHENOM certify this AD: numbers 50000005 through 50000119, Service Bulletin SB No.: 500–27–0006, dated (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 50000121 through 50000130, 50000132 September 2, 2010, and/or PHENOM Service through 50000134, 50000136, 50000137, action’’ under Executive Order 12866; Bulletin SB No.: 500–27–0006, Revision No.: 50000139, 50000141 through 50000158, 01, dated November 29, 2010, we will allow (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 50000160 through 50000162, 50000164, ‘‘unless already done’’ credit for corrective DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 50000165, 50000167 through 50000175, actions already done. (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 50000177, and 50000178, that are equipped (2) For group I and group II airplanes: (3) Will not have a significant with Angle of Attack (AOA) sensors, part Within 300 hours TIS after the effective date number (P/N) C–100117–2 and cover plates economic impact, positive or negative, of this AD or within 12 months after the P/N 500–01702–401 and/or P/N 500–01702– effective date of this AD, whichever comes on a substantial number of small entities 402. first, inspect the interface between the AOA under the criteria of the Regulatory (2) Group II airplanes: covers and the AOA sensors, and, if the Flexibility Act. Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. sealant is missing, clean the areas and apply We prepared a regulatory evaluation (EMBRAER) EMB–500 airplanes, serial new sealant following part II of PHENOM of the estimated costs to comply with numbers 50000005 through 50000217, Service Bulletin SB No.: 500–27–0006, 50000219 through 50000221, and 50000226. this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Revision No.: 02, dated January 14, 2011. Note 1: In-production effectivity—Empresa FAA AD Differences Examining the AD Docket Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) EMB–500 airplanes, serial numbers Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI You may examine the AD docket on 500000218, 50000222 through 50000225, and/or service information as follows: No the Internet at http:// 50000227, and on, have incorporated the differences. www.regulations.gov; or in person at the actions of this AD at the factory and are not Docket Management Facility between 9 included in the applicability of this AD. Other FAA AD Provisions a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through (g) The following provisions also apply to Subject Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD this AD: docket contains the NPRM, the (d) Air Transport Association of America (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance regulatory evaluation, any comments (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls. (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs received, and other information. The Reason for this AD, if requested using the procedures street address for the Docket Office (e) The mandatory continuing found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the airworthiness information (MCAI) states: ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, ADDRESSES section. Comments will be It has been found that moisture may FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, available in the AD docket shortly after accumulate and freeze, under certain Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; receipt. conditions, in the gap between the AOA vane telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329–

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52222 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

4090; e-mail: [email protected]. Before (4) You may also review copies of the correct the unsafe condition on these using any approved AMOC on any airplane service information incorporated by reference products. to which the AMOC applies, notify your for this AD at the National Archives and appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the Records Administration (NARA). For DATES: This AD becomes effective FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), information on the availability of this September 26, 2011. or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go The Director of the Federal Register (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ approved the incorporation by reference in this AD to obtain corrective actions from code_of_federal_regulations/ of certain publications listed in this AD _ a manufacturer or other source, use these ibr locations.html. as of September 26, 2011. actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on August ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD actions are considered FAA-approved if they 9, 2011. are approved by the State of Design Authority docket on the Internet at http:// Earl Lawrence, (or their delegated agent). You are required www.regulations.gov or in person at the to assure the product is airworthy before it Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft U.S. Department of Transportation, is returned to service. Certification Service. Docket Operations, M–30, West (3) Reporting Requirements: For any [FR Doc. 2011–20775 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, reporting requirement in this AD, a Federal BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a Washington, DC. person is not required to respond to, nor FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: shall a person be subject to a penalty for DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION failure to comply with a collection of Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer, information subject to the requirements of Federal Aviation Administration Airframe and Mechanical Systems the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York collection of information displays a current 14 CFR Part 39 Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, Control Number for this information [Docket No. FAA–2010–0515; Directorate New York 11590; telephone (516) 228– collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for Identifier 2009–NM–196–AD; Amendment 7355; fax (516) 794–5531. this collection of information is estimated to 39–16776; AD 2011–17–12] be approximately 5 minutes per response, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RIN 2120–AA64 including the time for reviewing instructions, Discussion completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, We issued a supplemental notice of of information are mandatory. Comments Inc. Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend concerning the accuracy of this burden and Series 700, 701 & 702), Model CL–600– 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that suggestions for reducing the burden should 2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and would apply to the specified products. be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Model CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet That supplemental NPRM was Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Series 900) Airplanes published in the Federal Register on Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200. AGENCY: Federal Aviation April 6, 2011 (76 FR 18957). That Administration (FAA), Department of supplemental NPRM proposed to Related Information Transportation (DOT). correct an unsafe condition for the (h) Refer to AGEˆ NCIA NACIONAL DE specified products. The MCAI states: ACTION: Final rule. AVIAÇA˜ O CIVIL—BRAZIL (ANAC), NPR/AD Several cases have been reported of cracks 2011–500–02, dated March 31, 2011; MCAI SUMMARY: We are adopting a new in the joint extrusions securing the outer AGEˆ NCIA NACIONAL DE AVIAÇA˜ O airworthiness directive (AD) for the bondment to the acoustic panel of the nacelle CIVIL—BRAZIL (ANAC), AD No.: 2010–11– transcowl assemblies. Although there is no 01, dated December 20, 2010; and PHENOM products listed above. This AD results effect on flight safety (thrust reverser Service Bulletin SB No.: 500–27–0006, from mandatory continuing stowed), thrust reverser deployment under Revision No.: 02, dated January 14, 2011; for airworthiness information (MCAI) rejected take-off or emergency landing load related information. originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct conditions could potentially result in Material Incorporated by Reference acoustic panel failure and possible runway an unsafe condition on an aviation (i) You must use PHENOM Service Bulletin debris. product. The MCAI describes the unsafe This [Canadian] directive mandates SB No.: 500–27–0006, Revision No.: 02, condition as: dated January 14, 2011, to do the actions inspection, repair (if necessary) and required by this AD, unless the AD specifies Several cases have been reported of cracks reinforcement of the transcowl assemblies. otherwise. in the joint extrusions securing the outer The loss of an acoustic panel during (1) The Director of the Federal Register bondment to the acoustic panel of the nacelle rejected take-off or emergency landing approved the incorporation by reference of transcowl assemblies. Although there is no load conditions could leave debris on effect on flight safety (thrust reverser this service information under 5 U.S.C. the runway. This debris, if not removed, 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. stowed), thrust reverser deployment under (2) For service information identified in rejected take-off or emergency landing load creates an unsafe condition for other this AD, contact EMBRAER Empresa conditions could potentially result in airplanes during take-off or landing, as Brasileira de Aeronaútica S.A., Phenom acoustic panel failure and possible runway those airplanes could impact debris on Maintenance Support, Av. Brig. Farina Lima, debris. the runway and sustain damage. The 2170, Sao Jose dos Campos–SP, CEP: 12227– * * * * * inspection is a detailed visual 901—P.O. Box: 36/2, BRASIL; telephone: The loss of an acoustic panel during inspection of the outboard edge of the ++55 12 3927–5383; fax: ++55 12 3927–2619; rejected take-off or emergency landing transcowl joint extrusion for evidence of e-mail: [email protected]; load conditions could leave debris on cracking. The repair consists of doing an Internet: http://www.embraer.com.br. the runway. This debris, if not removed, eddy current or liquid penetrant (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, creates an unsafe condition for other inspection for cracking, and depending Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, airplanes during take-off or landing, as on the results, either removing the Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information those airplanes could impact debris on affected joint extrusion area and on the availability of this material at the the runway and sustain damage. We are replacing with packers, or contacting FAA, call (816) 329–4148. issuing this AD to require actions to Bombardier for repair instructions and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52223

doing the repair. The reinforcement of We determined that these changes will safety in air commerce. This regulation the transcowl assemblies includes not increase the economic burden on is within the scope of that authority installing new support channels. You any operator or increase the scope of the because it addresses an unsafe condition may obtain further information by AD. that is likely to exist or develop on examining the MCAI in the AD docket. products identified in this rulemaking Differences Between This AD and the action. Comments MCAI or Service Information We gave the public the opportunity to We have reviewed the MCAI and Regulatory Findings participate in developing this AD. We related service information and, in We determined that this AD will not considered the comments received. general, agree with their substance. But have federalism implications under we might have found it necessary to use Executive Order 13132. This AD will Request To Allow for Records Review different words from those in the MCAI not have a substantial direct effect on American Eagle Airlines (AEA) to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. the States, on the relationship between requested that we revise the operators and is enforceable. In making the national government and the States, supplemental NPRM to allow operators these changes, we do not intend to differ or on the distribution of power and to perform a records review in lieu of substantively from the information responsibilities among the various the inspection for part number, serial provided in the MCAI and related levels of government. number, and repair status of each service information. For the reasons discussed above, I transcowl assembly, as required by We might also have required different certify this AD: paragraph (g) of the supplemental actions in this AD from those in the 1. Is not a ’’significant regulatory NPRM. AEA did not provide reasoning MCAI in order to follow our FAA action’’ under Executive Order 12866; for this request. policies. Any such differences are 2. Is not a ’’significant rule’’ under the We agree to allow operators to highlighted in a Note within the AD. DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures perform a records review in lieu of the Costs of Compliance (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and inspection for part number, serial 3. Will not have a significant number, and repair status of each We estimate that this AD will affect economic impact, positive or negative, transcowl assembly. We have 361 products of U.S. registry. We also on a substantial number of small entities determined that a review of airplane estimate that it will take about 8 work- under the criteria of the Regulatory maintenance records is acceptable in hours per product to comply with the Flexibility Act. lieu of the inspection, if the part basic requirements of this AD. The We prepared a regulatory evaluation number, serial number, and repair status average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. of the estimated costs to comply with of each transcowl assembly can be Required parts will cost about $0 per this AD and placed it in the AD docket. conclusively determined from that product. Where the service information review. We have revised paragraph (g) lists required parts costs that are Examining the AD Docket of the final rule accordingly. covered under warranty, we have You may examine the AD docket on assumed that there will be no charge for the Internet at http:// Request To Revise Paragraph (g)(1) of these parts. As we do not control the Supplemental NPRM www.regulations.gov; or in person at the warranty coverage for affected parties, Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. AEA requested that we revise some parties may incur costs higher and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, paragraph (g)(1) of the supplemental than estimated here. Based on these except Federal holidays. The AD docket NPRM to remove the reference to figures, we estimate the cost of this AD contains the NPRM, the regulatory paragraph (h) of the supplemental to the U.S. operators to be $245,480, or evaluation, any comments received, and NPRM. AEA explained that the $680 per product. other information. The street address for transcowls specified in paragraph (g)(1) In addition, we estimate that any the Docket Operations office (telephone of the supplemental NPRM are post- necessary follow-on actions would take (800) 647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES modified transcowls and do not need between 4 and 8 work-hours and require section. Comments will be available in the inspections required by paragraph parts costing $0, for a cost between $340 the AD docket shortly after receipt. (h) of the supplemental NPRM. AEA and $680 per product. We have no way reasoned that paragraph (h) of the of determining the number of products List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 supplemental NPRM should not apply that may need these actions. Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation to airplanes that have met the Authority for This Rulemaking safety, Incorporation by reference, conditions specified in paragraph Safety. (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of the Title 49 of the United States Code supplemental NPRM. specifies the FAA’s authority to issue Adoption of the Amendment We agree to revise paragraph (g)(1) of rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Accordingly, under the authority the final rule to remove reference to section 106, describes the authority of delegated to me by the Administrator, paragraph (h) of the final rule. We have the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as determined that only paragraph (k) of Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more follows: the final rule applies to post- detail the scope of the Agency’s modification transcowls. We have authority. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS revised paragraph (g)(1) of the final rule We are issuing this rulemaking under DIRECTIVES accordingly. the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 Conclusion General requirements.’’ Under that continues to read as follows: We reviewed the available data, section, Congress charges the FAA with Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. including the comment received, and promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in determined that air safety and the air commerce by prescribing regulations § 39.13 [Amended] public interest require adopting the AD for practices, methods, and procedures ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding with the changes described previously. the Administrator finds necessary for the following new AD:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52224 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

2011–17–12 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment and, as applicable, the repair status of each no cracks are found, close the cowlings on 39–16776. Docket No. FAA–2010–0515; transcowl assembly. A review of airplane the left and right engines. Directorate Identifier 2009–NM–196–AD. maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of (3) If any crack is found on one or more this inspection if the part number and serial transcowl assemblies during the inspection Effective Date number of each transcowl assembly, and, as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) applicable, the repair status of each before further flight, repair and reinforce the becomes effective September 26, 2011. transcowl assembly can be conclusively cracked part(s) in accordance with paragraph determined from that review. Affected ADs (i)(1) of this AD. (1) If all transcowl assemblies installed on (b) None. Note 1: Procedure—Part 3 of Task 05–51– any airplane meet one of the conditions 27–210–801 of Chapter 05, Part 2, Volume 1, Applicability listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, no further action is Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), CSP (c) This AD applies to the airplanes required by this AD, except paragraph (k) of B–001, Revision 34, dated November 20, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD must be complied with. 2010, provides guidance for opening and this AD, certificated in any category. (i) Having part number (P/N) KCN624– closing the cowling on the left and right (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2C10 2003–3, –4, –5, –6, –7, or –8, as listed in engines. (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029, airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through Revision C, dated November 10, 2010. (i) For transcowl assemblies identified in 10265 inclusive. (ii) Having P/Ns CN624–2001–XXX or paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Except as (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2D15 KCN624–2001–X (XXX and X mean various required by paragraph (h) of this AD, within (Regional Jet Series 705) and Model CL–600– dash numbers), with serial number (S/N) 5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the 2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, SB0965 or higher. effective date of this AD, whichever comes serial numbers 15001 through 15192 (iii) Having P/Ns CN624–2001–XXX or first, do a detailed inspection for cracking on inclusive. KCN624–2001–X (XXX and X mean various each transcowl assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Subject dash numbers), and repaired in accordance with one of the Bombardier repair Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008, (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of engineering orders (REOs) listed in paragraph Revision B, dated December 22, 2010; or America Code 78: Engine exhaust. 1.D. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA– Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029, Reason 78–008, Revision B, dated December 22, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010. 2010; or paragraph 1.A. of Bombardier Accomplishment of the actions specified in (e) The mandatory continuing Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029, Revision C, paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD for all airworthiness information (MCAI) states: dated November 10, 2010. transcowl assemblies identified in paragraph Several cases have been reported of cracks (2) If one or more of the transcowl (g)(2) of this AD terminates the requirements in the joint extrusions securing the outer assemblies have P/N CN624–2001–XXX or of paragraph (h) of this AD. bondment to the acoustic panel of the nacelle KCN624–2001–X (XXX and X mean various (1) If any cracking of the joint extrusion is transcowl assemblies. Although there is no dash numbers), with S/N SB0964 or lower, found, before further flight, repair and effect on flight safety (thrust reverser and have not been repaired in accordance reinforce the joint extrusion on each stowed), thrust reverser deployment under with one of the Bombardier REOs listed in transcowl assembly, in accordance with the rejected take-off or emergency landing load paragraph 1.D. of Bombardier Service Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier conditions could potentially result in Bulletin 670BA–78–008, Revision B, dated Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008, Revision B, acoustic panel failure and possible runway December 22, 2010; or paragraph 1.A. of dated December 22, 2010; or Bombardier debris. Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029, Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029, Revision C, * * * * * Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; do the dated November 10, 2010. The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. (2) If no cracking is found, before further take-off or emergency landing load (h) As of the effective date of this AD, if flight, reinforce the joint extrusion on each conditions could leave debris on the runway. any high-energy stop occurs and the thrust transcowl assembly, in accordance with the This debris, if not removed, creates an unsafe reversers are deployed above 68% N1, or if Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier condition for other airplanes during take-off a rejected take-off (RTO) occurs and the Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008, Revision B, or landing, as those airplanes could impact thrust reversers are deployed above 68% N1: dated December 22, 2010; or Bombardier debris on the runway and sustain damage. Perform a detailed inspection for cracks of Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029, Revision C, each transcowl assembly (left, right, upper, dated November 10, 2010. Compliance and lower) before further flight, by doing the Credit for Actions Accomplished in (f) You are responsible for having the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), Accordance With Previous Service actions required by this AD performed within and (h)(3) of this AD. Doing the requirements Information the compliance times specified, unless the of paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the actions have already been done. requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD. (j) Inspections, repairs, and reinforcement (1) Open the cowling on the left and right of the joint extrusion on each transcowl is Inspection, Repair, and Reinforcement engines. also acceptable for compliance with the (g) Within 5,000 flight hours or 24 months (2) Do a detailed inspection for cracks of corresponding requirements of paragraph (i) after the effective date of this AD, whichever the joint extrusion of the upper and lower of this AD if done before the effective date occurs first, inspect for the part number and transcowl assembly on the left and right of this AD in accordance with the service serial number of each transcowl assembly, engines at the location of the joint piece. If information listed in table 1 of this AD.

TABLE 1—CREDIT SERVICE INFORMATION

Document Revision Date

Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008 ...... Original ...... September 19, 2008. Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008 ...... A ...... July 10, 2009. Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029 ...... Original ...... July 3, 2008. Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029 ...... A ...... June 30, 2009. Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029 ...... B ...... November 25, 2009.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52225

Parts Installation this service information under 5 U.S.C. structure, and consequent reduced (k) As of the effective date of this AD, no 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. structural integrity of the wing. (2) For service information identified in replacement or spare transcowl assembly DATES: This AD is effective September this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Coˆte- having P/N CN624–2001–XXX or KCN624– 26, 2011. 2001–X (XXX and X mean various dash Vertu Road West, Dorval, Que´bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514– The Director of the Federal Register numbers), with S/N SB0964 or lower, may be approved the incorporation by reference installed on any airplane, except for a 855–7401; e-mail transcowl assembly on which any repair [email protected]; Internet http:// of a certain publication listed in the AD listed in paragraph 1.D. of Bombardier www.bombardier.com. as of September 26, 2011. Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008, Revision B, (3) You may review copies of the service ADDRESSES: For service information dated December 22, 2010, or paragraph 1.A. information at the FAA, Transport Airplane identified in this AD, contact Boeing Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78– Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call & Services Management, 3855 has been done; and except for a transcowl Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, that has been inspected as specified in 425–227–1221. paragraph (i) of this AD and all applicable (4) You may also review copies of the Long Beach, California 90846–0001; actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) service information that is incorporated by telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; of this AD, as applicable, have been done. reference at the National Archives and fax 206–766–5683; e-mail Records Administration (NARA). For [email protected]; Internet FAA AD Differences information on the availability of this https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ may review copies of the referenced and/or service information as follows: No code_of_federal_regulations/ service information at the FAA, differences. ibr_locations.html. Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. Other FAA AD Provisions Issued in Renton, Washington, on August For information on the availability of (l) The following provisions also apply to 8, 2011. this material at the FAA, call 425–227– this AD: Ali Bahrami, 1221. (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Aircraft Certification Service. Examining the AD Docket Certification Office, ANE–170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if [FR Doc. 2011–20673 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] You may examine the AD docket on requested using the procedures found in 14 BILLING CODE 4910–13–P the Internet at http:// CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, www.regulations.gov; or in person at the send your request to your principal inspector Docket Management Facility between 9 or local Flight Standards District Office, as DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through appropriate. If sending information directly Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD to the NYACO, send it to ATTN: Program Federal Aviation Administration Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, docket contains this AD, the regulatory 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 14 CFR Part 39 evaluation, any comments received, and New York 11590; telephone 516–228–7300; other information. The address for the fax 516–794–5531. Before using any [Docket No. FAA–2009–1213; Directorate Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is approved AMOC, notify your appropriate Identifier 2009–NM–097–AD; Amendment Document Management Facility, U.S. principal inspector, or lacking a principal 39–16775; AD 2011–17–11] Department of Transportation, Docket inspector, the manager of the local flight RIN 2120–AA64 Operations, M–30, West Building standards district office/certificate holding Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 district office. The AMOC approval letter Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing must specifically reference this AD. New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement Company Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC 20590. in this AD to obtain corrective actions from DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a manufacturer or other source, use these DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective Airplanes Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los actions are considered FAA-approved if they AGENCY: Federal Aviation Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, are approved by the State of Design Authority 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, (or their delegated agent). You are required Administration (FAA), DOT. California 90712–4137; phone: (562) to assure the product is airworthy before it ACTION: Final rule. is returned to service. 627–5233; fax: (562) 627–5210; e-mail: SUMMARY: We are adopting a new [email protected]. Related Information airworthiness directive (AD) for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (m) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness products listed above. This AD requires Directive CF–2009–33, dated July 28, 2009; repetitive inspections for cracking of the Discussion Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–78–008, lower rear spar caps of the wings, and We issued a notice of proposed Revision B, dated December 22, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH–78–029, related investigative and corrective rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; for actions if necessary. This AD also part 39 to include an airworthiness related information. requires repetitive inspections of certain directive (AD) that would apply to the repaired areas. This AD was prompted specified products. That NPRM Material Incorporated by Reference by reports of cracking of the wing rear published in the Federal Register on (n) You must use Bombardier Service spar lower cap at the outboard flap and February 8, 2010 (75 FR 6162). That Bulletin 670BA–78–008, Revision B, dated inboard drive hinge at station NPRM proposed to require repetitive December 22, 2010; and Bombardier Service Xrs=164.000; the cracking is due to inspections for cracking of the lower Bulletin 670SH–78–029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; as applicable; to do the material fatigue from normal flap rear spar caps of the wings, and related actions required by this AD, unless the AD operating loads. We are issuing this AD investigative and corrective actions if specifies otherwise. to detect and correct such fatigue necessary. That NPRM also proposed to (1) The Director of the Federal Register cracking, which could result in fuel require repetitive inspections of certain approved the incorporation by reference of leaks, damage to the wing skin or other repaired areas.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52226 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Actions Since Issuance of NPRM 13514, June 4, 2004); be included in the Designation Authorization (ODA)- The NPRM referred to Boeing Alert NPRM. ATA and AAL reiterated certain approved repairs for any crack found Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated inspection/compliance requirements in (less than or equal to 2.0 inches) in a May 8, 2009, as the appropriate source those previous ADs, and stated that temporary repair done during the of service information for accomplishing some of those requirements conflict repetitive inspections. The commenters with the requirements in this NPRM. noted that paragraph (j) of the NPRM the actions. Since issuance of the ATA and AAL recommend specifies, ‘‘[i]f any crack is found during NPRM, Boeing has issued Alert Service incorporating those ADs into this NPRM any inspection of a temporary repair, Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, to clarify, consolidate, and update the before further flight, repair using a dated January 7, 2011. No more work is compliance requirements. method approved in accordance with necessary for airplanes on which the We do not agree to include the the procedures specified in paragraph original issue was used to accomplish inspection requirements from previous (k) of this AD.’’ The commenters added the actions. Certain procedures ADs in this AD. Although the that these requirements do not clearly specified in Revision 1 of this service inspections in the previous ADs are detail the crack requirements and bulletin have been clarified to provide similar, the root cause of the unsafe limitations; since the temporary repair additional instructions. Revision 1 of condition in this AD (i.e., high-cycle is reinforcing an existing crack, a crack this service bulletin also added fatigue in this AD versus manufacturing will always be found during subsequent procedures for splice repair options and quality in the previous ADs) is different, inspections. The commenters also stated removed the instruction to contact which means the inspections and that the ‘‘any crack’’ statement conflicts Boeing for that repair. In addition, the terminating actions are different as well, with the requirements of paragraph term ‘‘temporary repair,’’ as specified in and do not conflict with the (c)(3)(i) of AD 96–23–07 R1, which the original issue of this service requirements specified in the existing states, ‘‘[i]f any crack progression is bulletin, was changed to ‘‘doubler ADs referenced by the commenter. found during any repetitive eddy repair’’ in Revision 1 of this service Therefore, we have determined that the current inspection following bulletin. In addition, instead of actions should be addressed in this accomplishment of the temporary contacting Boeing for repair instructions ‘‘stand-alone’’ AD. We have not changed repair, contact the ACO.’’ Additionally, for Condition 3, Revision 1 of this the AD in this regard. the commenters noted that the ‘‘any service bulletin specifies three sub- crack’’ statement conflicts with Boeing conditions and provides corresponding Request To Clarify Repetitive Inspection Requirement Drawing 3668B, Disposition A through doubler or splice repairs. D. We have revised this AD to refer to ATA and AAL stated that the We disagree with the commenters. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80– Relevant Service Information section of The requirement in this AD is to do 57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, the NPRM specifies that no action is repetitive eddy current inspections 2011, as the appropriate source of necessary for Group 1, Configuration 1 around the perimeter of the repair service information for accomplishing airplanes. The commenters added that doublers; therefore, indications of the the actions, and added a new paragraph this statement conflicts with paragraph initially stop-drilled and repaired (h) to this AD (and reidentified 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert cracking would not be found during subsequent paragraphs) to give credit for Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, accomplishment of the repetitive using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011 inspections. We have not changed the MD80–57A242, dated May 8, 2009, for (which also is related to AD 96–23–07 AD in this regard. accomplishing the actions. We also have R1). That service bulletin also specifies replaced the word ‘‘temporary’’ in the following in a note: ‘‘Repeat Request To Clarify Certain Procedures paragraphs (g)(2) and (j) of this AD with inspections in accordance with Service in Referenced Service Information the word ‘‘doubler.’’ In addition, we Bulletin MD80–57–184, Paragraph In addition, ATA and AAL stated that have removed paragraph (i) of the 1.D.(5), ‘‘Compliance,’’ are still the NPRM should further clarify the NPRM, which specified contacting the required.’’ new requirements associated with FAA for the splice repair. Further, we We agree that clarification is Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80– have specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this necessary. The NPRM clearly specifies 57A242, dated May 8, 2009, and AD that operators may still accomplish that no action is necessary for Group 1, identified in two sections of the the required action in accordance with Configuration 1 airplanes. That NPRM—the differences section in the the procedures specified in paragraph statement is correct as it applies to this preamble and the exceptions in (k) of this AD. new AD. However, the note which paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM. appears in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin Where the NPRM specifies that ‘‘crack Comments MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated length is longer than 2.0 inches or is We gave the public the opportunity to January 7, 2011, serves as a reminder located in the rear spar cap forward participate in developing this AD. The that repetitive inspections are still horizontal leg radius,’’ the commenters following presents the comments required in accordance with AD 96–23– stated this could be further clarified by received on the proposal and the FAA’s 07 R1 for Group 1, Configuration 1 stating that this is Condition 3 in Boeing response to each comment. airplanes. For clarification purposes, we Alert Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated May 8, 2009, or by adding a table Request To Include Inspections have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to to the AD. Required by Previous ADs exclude Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes from the requirements of that The commenters also stated that The Air Transport Association (ATA), paragraph. where paragraph (i) of the NPRM on behalf of its member American specifies that ‘‘If any crack is found Airlines (AAL), asked that applicable Request To Clarify Certain Procedures during any inspection required by this inspection requirements in AD 96–23– in Differences Section AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 07 R1, Amendment 39–10110 (62 FR ATA and AAL also stated that the MD80–57A242, dated May 8, 2009, 44208, August 20, 1997); and AD 2004– Differences section of the NPRM specifies contacting Boeing for repair 11–07, Amendment 39–13653 (69 FR specifies FAA- or Boeing Organization * * *,’’ the phrase could be further

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52227

clarified by adding a table to the AD that ‘‘refer to’’ are used, and the operator has Request for Validation of the Service identifies the three conditions specified an accepted alternative procedure, the Bulletin in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80– accepted alternative procedure can be 57A242, dated May 8, 2009, the three used. Therefore, we have not changed ATA and AAL expressed concern that sub-conditions under Condition 2, the the AD in this regard. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80– temporary repair condition, and the 57A242, dated May 8, 2009, did not associated AD requirements. Request To Clarify Crack Limitations in have a validation program performed to We find that some clarification is Referenced Service Information ensure that data, instructions, and necessary. Condition 3 in Boeing Alert ATA and AAL noted that the criteria processes specified in that service Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, for crack findings specified in Boeing bulletin are correct, clear, appropriate, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, Alert Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, and understood by maintenance provides clarification with regard to the dated May 9, 2009, do not provide clear personnel performing the work. cracking, as follows: ’’ * * * lower spar guidance regarding crack limitations. From this statement, we infer the cap has a crack longer than 2.0 inches The commenters added that the commenters are requesting that the in length or crack in the rear spar cap procedures in this service bulletin do procedures specified in Boeing Alert forward horizontal leg radius.’’ No not describe criteria for a crack with the change to this AD is necessary in this Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated stop-drill configuration. The May 8, 2009, be validated by the regard because the differences section of commenters asked that the criteria for airplane manufacturer. We agree that the preamble of the NPRM is not crack findings be further clarified. restated in the final rule. certain procedures in Boeing Alert We agree that clarification is Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated In addition, as explained previously necessary. The measurement of the May 8, 2009, need clarification. we removed paragraph (i) of the NPRM crack length is intended to be the total However, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin from this final rule because Boeing Alert curvilinear crack length, which is MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, consistent with standard maintenance January 7, 2011, provides clarification Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, now practice; therefore, no additional for certain instructions provided in the provides splice repair instructions. measurement criteria are necessary. The Therefore, it is no longer necessary to effect of stop drills on crack length is original issue of that service bulletin so include an exception to this service not relevant because Boeing Alert the procedures are clear and concise bulletin. We have not changed the AD Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, and to ensure they are understood by in this regard. Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, maintenance personnel performing the Request To Call Out Specific Service specifies actions based on the length of work. Bulletin Sections the unrepaired cracks, and not on In addition, it should be noted that Additionally, ATA and AAL noted repaired or stop-drilled cracks. We have the inspections and repairs in Boeing concerns that the proposed not changed the AD in this regard. Alert Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, requirements of the NPRM specify ATA and AAL also noted that the Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, are accomplishing what AAL interpreted to procedures in Boeing Alert Service identical to those in AD 96–23–07 R1, be all the requirements in the service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated May 9, although the compliance times and information. The commenters stated 2009, are inconsistent regarding applicability are different. (AD 96–23– that the proposed AD should be acceptable crack configurations for the 07 R1 referred to McDonnell Douglas clarified and further highlighted to forward horizontal leg radius for the MD–80 Service Bulletin 57–184, indicate that only specific sections of lower and upper spar caps. The Revision 1, dated December 22, 1994, as the service bulletin are required by the commenters stated that the procedures the appropriate source of service proposed AD. AAL reiterated certain specify that a crack cannot be in the information for accomplishing the open and close procedures and noted forward horizontal leg radius for the actions.) In light of this information, a that accomplishing those procedures lower cap, and those procedures refer to formal evaluation of Boeing Alert should not affect compliance with the Drawing J060271, Note 29. The Service Bulletin MD80–57A242 was not proposed AD. AAL asked that we commenter stated that this drawing does deemed necessary. We have not include the following in the AD: ‘‘Only have this limitation for the lower cap as changed the AD in this regard. the SB procedures specified by the AD well as the upper cap. However, that are affected by the FAA–AD. Other service bulletin does not refer to Note 29 Explanation of Changes Made to This procedures such as preparation, open/ for the upper cap procedures. The AD commenter requested that clarification close, and access procedures described We have revised this AD to identify of the crack criteria for doubler repairs by the SB are not affected by FAA–AD the name of the manufacturer as on the upper spar cap be provided. compliance requirements.’’ AAL also published in the most recent type We agree that clarification is asked that we consider including the certificate data sheet for the affected necessary. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin procedures that are or are not affected airplane models. by the proposed AD in its content. MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated We acknowledge the commenters’ January 7, 2011, clarifies the crack Conclusion concerns, but disagree with the request criteria for the upper cap using Drawing to change this AD. In Section 3.A., J060271, Note 29, for the crack criteria We reviewed the relevant data, ‘‘General Information,’’ paragraphs 8 when determining whether doubler considered the comments received, and through 10 of Boeing Alert Service repair of the upper spar cap is allowed. determined that air safety and the Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, We have included Boeing Alert Service public interest require adopting the AD dated January 7, 2011, additional Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, with the changes described previously. procedures are defined that can be used dated January 7, 2011, as an appropriate We have determined that these changes for accomplishing certain actions. In source of service information for will neither increase the economic addition, paragraph 13 of that section accomplishing the actions required by burden on any operator nor increase the specifies, in part, that when the words this AD. scope of the AD.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52228 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Explanation of Change to Costs of List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and Compliance (g)(2) of this AD are not required for Group Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 1, Configuration 1 airplanes, as identified in Since issuance of the NPRM, we have safety, Incorporation by reference, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, increased the labor rate used in the Safety. Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011. Costs of Compliance from $80 per work- Adoption of the Amendment (1) Do initial and repetitive eddy current hour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of testing high frequency (ETHF) inspections for Compliance information, below, reflects Accordingly, under the authority cracking of the lower rear spar caps of the this increase in the specified labor rate. delegated to me by the Administrator, wings, and do all applicable related the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as investigative and corrective actions, by doing Costs of Compliance follows: all the applicable actions specified in the We estimate that this AD affects 670 Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert airplanes of U.S. registry. We also PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, estimate that it will take about 4 work- DIRECTIVES dated January 7, 2011; or in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of hours per product to comply with this ■ AD. The average labor rate is $85 per 1. The authority citation for part 39 this AD. work-hour. Based on these figures, we continues to read as follows: (2) Do initial and repetitive ETHF Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. inspections for cracking of any doubler estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. repairs, and do all applicable related operators to be $227,800, or $340 per § 39.13 [Amended] investigative and corrective actions, by doing product, per inspection cycle. all the applicable actions specified in the ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Authority for This Rulemaking Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert the following new airworthiness Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, Title 49 of the United States Code directive (AD): dated January 7, 2011; except as required by specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 2011–17–11 The Boeing Company: paragraph (j) of this AD. rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Amendment 39–16775; Docket No. Credit for Actions Accomplished in section 106, describes the authority of FAA–2009–1213; Directorate Identifier Accordance With Previous Service the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 2009–NM–097–AD. Information Aviation Programs, describes in more Effective Date detail the scope of the Agency’s (h) Actions done before the effective date (a) This AD is effective September 26, of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert authority. 2011. Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, dated May We are issuing this rulemaking under 8, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with Affected ADs the authority described in Subtitle VII, the corresponding requirements of this AD. Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: (b) None. ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications Applicability section, Congress charges the FAA with (i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in (c) This AD applies to The Boeing MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, Company Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9– air commerce by prescribing regulations 2011, specifies a compliance time after the 82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 date of that service bulletin, this AD requires for practices, methods, and procedures (MD–87), and MD–88 airplanes, certificated the Administrator finds necessary for compliance within the specified compliance in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert time after the effective date of this AD. safety in air commerce. This regulation Service Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, (j) If any crack is found during any is within the scope of that authority dated January 7, 2011. inspection of a doubler repair, before further because it addresses an unsafe condition Subject flight, repair using a method approved in that is likely to exist or develop on accordance with the procedures specified in (d) Joint Aircraft System Component products identified in this rulemaking paragraph (k) of this AD. (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of action. America Code 57: Wings. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) Regulatory Findings Unsafe Condition (k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft This AD will not have federalism (e) This AD was prompted by reports of Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the implications under Executive Order cracking of the wing rear spar lower cap at authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 13132. This AD will not have a the outboard flap and inboard drive hinge at requested using the procedures found in 14 station Xrs=164.000; the cracking is due to substantial direct effect on the States, on CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the relationship between the national material fatigue from normal flap operating loads. We are issuing this AD to detect and send your request to your principal inspector government and the States, or on the or local Flight Standards District Office, as distribution of power and correct fatigue cracking, which could result in fuel leaks, damage to the wing skin or appropriate. If sending information directly responsibilities among the various other structure, and consequent reduced to the manager of the ACO, send it to the levels of government. structural integrity of the wing. attention of the person identified in the For the reasons discussed above, I Related Information section of this AD. certify that this AD: Compliance (2) Before using any approved AMOC, (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory (f) You are responsible for having the notify your appropriate principal inspector, action’’ under Executive Order 12866, actions required by this AD performed within or lacking a principal inspector, the manager (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the compliance times specified, unless the of the local flight standards district office/ DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures actions have already been done. certificate holding district office. (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), Repetitive Inspections and Related (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation level of safety may be used for any repair Investigative and Corrective Actions required by this AD, if it is approved by the in Alaska, and (g) At the applicable times specified in Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization (4) Will not have a significant paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Designation Authorization (ODA) that has economic impact, positive or negative, Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles on a substantial number of small entities January 7, 2011, do the actions required by ACO, to make those findings. For a repair under the criteria of the Regulatory paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, except method to be approved, the repair must meet Flexibility Act. as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. The the certification basis of the airplane.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52229

Related Information navigation aid and the Fort Stockton, Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, (l) For more information about this AD, Texas, VORTAC. The new route and effective September 15, 2010, which contact Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, provides pilots and air traffic controllers is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los with an efficient alternate route around 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 potentially constrained airspace during document will be published Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California convective weather events in west subsequently in the Order. 90712–4137; phone: (562) 627–5233; fax: Texas. (562) 627–5210; e-mail: The FAA has determined that this [email protected]. DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October regulation only involves an established 20, 2011. The Director of the Federal Material Incorporated by Reference body of technical regulations for which Register approves this incorporation by frequent and routine amendments are (m) You must use Boeing Alert Service reference action under 1 CFR part 51, necessary to keep them operationally Bulletin MD80–57A242, Revision 1, dated subject to the annual revision of FAA January 7, 2011; to do the actions required by current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Order 7400.9 and publication of not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ (1) The Director of the Federal Register conforming amendments. under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not approved the incorporation by reference of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of the service information contained in this AD Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations and Transportation (DOT) Regulatory under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. ATC Procedures Group, Office of Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; (2) For service information identified in Airspace Services, Federal Aviation February 26, 1979); and (3) does not this AD, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Administration, 800 Independence warrant preparation of a regulatory Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, Long Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; evaluation as the anticipated impact is Beach, California 90846–0001; telephone telephone: (202) 267–8783. so minimal. Since this is a routine 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206–766– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: matter that will only affect air traffic 5683; e-mail [email protected]; procedures and air navigation, it is History Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. certified that this rule, when (3) You may review copies of the service On Monday, October 26, 2009, the promulgated, will not have a significant information at the FAA, Transport Airplane FAA published in the Federal Register economic impact on a substantial Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, a notice of proposed rulemaking number of small entities under the Washington. For information on the (NPRM) to establish area navigation criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. availability of this material at the FAA, call route Q–37 (74 FR 54943). Interested 425–227–1221. The FAA’s authority to issue rules parties were invited to participate in (4) You may also review copies of the regarding aviation safety is found in this rulemaking effort by submitting service information that is incorporated by Title 49 of the United States Code. written comments on the proposal. No reference at the National Archives and Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the Records Administration (NARA). For comments were received. information on the availability of this authority of the FAA Administrator. material at an NARA facility, call 202–741– The Rule Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/ This action amends Title 14, Code of describes in more detail the scope of the federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by agency’s authority. _ ibr locations.html. establishing high altitude area This rulemaking is promulgated Issued in Renton, Washington, on August navigation route Q–37 between the under the authority described in 8, 2011. Pueblo, CO, VORTAC, and the Fort Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section Ali Bahrami, Stockton, TX, VORTAC. The new route 40103. Under that section, the FAA is Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, provides pilots and air traffic controllers charged with prescribing regulations to Aircraft Certification Service. with an efficient alternate route around assign the use of the airspace necessary [FR Doc. 2011–20672 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] potentially constrained airspace during to ensure the safety of aircraft and the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P convective weather events in west efficient use of airspace. This regulation Texas. Additionally, the new route is is within the scope of that authority as being integrated into the existing severe it establishes an RNAV route to enhance DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION weather national playbook routes to the safe and efficient flow of traffic in Houston, TX, terminal airports through the central United States. Federal Aviation Administration Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center’s airspace, in lieu of the current Environmental Review 14 CFR Part 71 process of coordinating tactical The FAA has determined that this modifications to routings with the FAA [Docket No. FAA–2009–0867; Airspace action qualifies for categorical exclusion Air Traffic Control Services Command Docket No. 09–ASW–16] under the National Environmental Center. Policy Act in accordance with FAA RIN 2120–AA66 In the NPRM, the points CAVRN and IMMAS were erroneously identified as Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental Establishment of Area Navigation Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ Route Q–37; Texas a ‘‘WP’’ (waypoint). These points are being established and charted as paragraphs 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially AGENCY: Federal Aviation navigation fixes; therefore, an editorial Administration (FAA), DOT. change is being made in this rule to significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist ACTION: Final rule. replace ‘‘WP’’ with ‘‘Fix’’ in the description for CAVRN and IMMAS. that warrant preparation of an SUMMARY: This action establishes a high With the exception of these changes, environmental assessment. altitude area navigation (RNAV) route, this amendment is the same as that List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 designated Q–37, extending between the proposed in the NPRM. Pueblo, Colorado, VHF omnidirectional High altitude RNAV routes are Airspace, Incorporation by reference, range/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Navigation (air).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52230 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Adoption of the Amendment Airport. This action enhances the safety routine matter that will only affect air In consideration of the foregoing, the and airspace management of Instrument traffic procedures and air navigation, it Federal Aviation Administration Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the is certified that this rule, when amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: National Airspace System. promulgated, will not have a significant DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 20, economic impact on a substantial PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 2011. The Director of the Federal number of small entities under the B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR Register approves this incorporation by criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND reference action under title 1, Code of The FAA’s authority to issue rules REPORTING POINTS Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to regarding aviation safety is found in the annual revision of FAA Order Title 49 of the United States Code. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 7400.9 and publication of conforming Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the continues to read as follows: amendments. authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Fornito, Operations Support Group, describes in more detail the scope of the 1963 Comp., p. 389. Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation agency’s authority. This rulemaking is promulgated § 71.1 [Amended] Administration, P.O. Box 20636, under the authority described in ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364. Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9U, 40103. Under that section, the FAA is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airspace Designations and Reporting charged with prescribing regulations to Points, dated August 18, 2010, and History assign the use of airspace necessary to effective September 15, 2010, is ensure the safety of aircraft and the amended as follows: On June 13, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as Paragraph 2006 United States Area proposed rulemaking to establish Class Navigation Routes E airspace at Forest, VA (76 FR 34196) it establishes controlled airspace at New London Airport, Forest, VA. * * * * * Docket No. FAA–2011–0378. Interested parties were invited to participate in Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Q–37 FST, TX to PUB, CO [New] this rulemaking effort by submitting FST VORTAC written comments on the proposal to the Airspace, Incorporation by reference, (Lat. 30°57′08″ N., long. 102°58′33″ W.) FAA. No comments were received. Class Navigation (Air). CAVRN Fix ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ E airspace designations are published in Adoption of the Amendment (Lat. 31 49 31 N., long. 104 00 42 W.) paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U YORUB WP In consideration of the foregoing, the dated August 18, 2010, and effective (Lat. 32°55′52″ N., long. 104°14′01″ W.) Federal Aviation Administration September 15, 2010, which is IMMAS Fix amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: (Lat. 34°54′18″ N., long. 104°18′53″ W.) incorporated by reference in 14 CFR PUB VORTAC 71.1. The Class E airspace designations PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ (Lat. 38 17 39 N., long. 104 25 46 W.) listed in this document will be B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR * * * * * published subsequently in the Order. TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, The Rule REPORTING POINTS 2011. This amendment to Title 14, Code of ■ Gary A. Norek, 1. The authority citation for part 71 Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 continues to read as follows: Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and establishes the Class E airspace ATC Procedures Group. extending upward from 700 feet above Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, [FR Doc. 2011–21290 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– the surface at Forest, VA, to provide the 1963 Comp., p. 389. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV GPS standard § 71.1 [Amended] instrument approach procedures DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in developed for New London Airport. 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration This action is necessary for the safety Administration Order 7400.9U, and management of IFR operations at Airspace Designations and Reporting 14 CFR Part 71 the airport. Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective The FAA has determined that this September 15, 2010, is amended as [Docket No. FAA–2011–0378; Airspace regulation only involves an established follows: Docket No. 11–AEA–11] body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Establishment of Class E Airspace; necessary to keep them operationally Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Forest, VA current, is non-controversial and Above the Surface of the Earth AGENCY: Federal Aviation unlikely to result in adverse or negative * * * * * Administration (FAA), DOT. comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a AEA VA E5 Forest, VA [New] ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under ACTION: Final rule. New London Airport, VA Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a (Lat. 37°16′18″ N., long. 79°20′9″ W.) SUMMARY: This action establishes Class ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT That airspace extending upward from 700 E Airspace at Forest, VA, to Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 feet above the surface within a 8.4-mile accommodate the new Area Navigation FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) radius of the New London Airport, and (RNAV) Global Positioning System does not warrant preparation of a within 2 miles either side of the 347° bearing (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated from the airport extending from the 8.4-mile Procedures serving New London impact is so minimal. Since this is a radius to 12.1 miles northwest of the airport.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52231

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone FAA’s safety culture and its 9, 2011. 202–267–3073; e-mail implementation of safety management Mark D. Ward, [email protected]. systems, issued its report titled, ‘‘Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: A Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. Review of the FAA’s Approach to [FR Doc. 2011–21284 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Authority for This Rulemaking Safety.’’ The report stated that ‘‘[t]he BILLING CODE 4910–13–P The FAA’s authority to issue rules on FAA, like all other regulators, faces the aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the danger of regulatory capture. Capture United States Code. Subtitle I, section occurs when a regulatory agency draws DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 106 describes the authority of the FAA so close to those with whom it deals on a daily basis (i.e. the regulated) that the Federal Aviation Administration Administrator, to include the authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. agency ends up elevating their concerns Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, at the expense of the agency’s core 14 CFR Parts 91, 119, 125, 133, 137, mission.’’ A full copy of the report may 141, 142, 145, and 147 describes in more detail the scope of the agency’s authority. This rulemaking is be found in the docket for this rulemaking. [Docket No. FAA–2008–1154; Amendment promulgated under the authority Nos. 91–325, 119–5, 125–61, 133–14, 137– described in subtitle VII, part A, chapter A. Summary of the NPRM 16, 141–16, 142–8, 145–29, and 147–7] 447, Safety Regulation. Under section The NPRM was published in the RIN 2120–AJ36 44701(a) the FAA is charged with Federal Register on November 20, 2009 promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft (74 FR 60218) and the comment period Restrictions on Operators Employing in air commerce by prescribing closed on February 18, 2010. The NPRM Former Flight Standards Service regulations and minimum standards for proposed to prohibit any person holding Aviation Safety Inspectors other practices, methods, and a certificate to conduct operations under procedures necessary for safety in air AGENCY: parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, Federal Aviation commerce and national security. Administration (FAA), DOT. 145 or 147 from knowingly employing, or making a contractual arrangement ACTION: Final rule. I. Background with, certain individuals to act as an On March 5, 2008, the FAA proposed SUMMARY: This rule will prohibit any agent or a representative of the a $10.2 million civil penalty against a certificate holder in any matter before person holding a certificate from major airline for operating 46 airplanes knowingly employing, or making a the FAA under certain conditions. without performing mandatory These restrictions would apply if the contractual arrangement with, certain inspections for fuselage fatigue cracking. individuals to act as an agent or a individual, in the preceding 2-year The FAA alleged that the airline period: (1) Directly served as, or was representative of the certificate holder operated 46 Boeing 737 airplanes on in any matter before the FAA under directly responsible for the oversight of, almost 60,000 flights from June 2006 to an AFS ASI; and (2) had direct certain conditions. These restrictions March 2007 while failing to comply will apply if the individual, in the responsibility to inspect, or oversee the with an existing FAA Airworthiness inspection of, the operations of the preceding 2-year period directly served Directive (AD) that required repetitive as, or was directly responsible for the certificate holder. The NPRM also inspections of certain fuselage areas to proposed to apply to persons who own oversight of, a Flight Standards Service detect fatigue cracking. Aviation Safety Inspector, and had or manage fractional ownership program Based on this event, on June 30, 2008, aircraft that are used to conduct direct responsibility to inspect, or the Department of Transportation (DOT) oversee the inspection of, the operations operations under subpart K of part 91. Office of Inspector General issued a The FAA proposed to establish these of the certificate holder. This rule will report on its review of the FAA’s also apply to persons who own or restrictions to prevent potential oversight of airlines and use of organizational conflicts of interest manage fractional ownership program regulatory partnership programs. The aircraft that are used to conduct which could adversely affect aviation report concluded that the FAA safety. operations under specific regulations Certificate Management Office (CMO) described in this document. This rule overseeing the airline that failed to B. Discussion of the Comments will establish these restrictions to perform the required inspections had prevent potential organizational The FAA received five comments on developed an overly collaborative the proposed rule, all from individual conflicts of interest which could relationship with the airline. The report adversely affect aviation safety. commenters. The FAA did not receive recommended that the FAA should comments from airlines, trade DATES: Effective Date: This amendment enhance management controls by associations, or labor organizations. The becomes effective October 21, 2011. implementing post-employment three adverse comments addressed the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For guidance that includes a ‘‘cooling-off’’ applicability of the rule, and the technical questions concerning this final period to prohibit an air carrier from potential burdens the rule could create. rule, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, hiring an FAA Flight Standards Service Two comments expressed support for Federal Aviation Administration, Air Aviation Safety Inspector (AFS ASI) the rule. Commenters also suggested Transportation Division, AFS–200, 800 who previously inspected that air changes, as discussed more fully in this Independence Avenue, SW., carrier from acting in any type of liaison section. Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) capacity between it and the FAA. A full 267–8166; e-mail copy of the report is contained in the 1. Applicability of Employment [email protected]. For legal docket for this rulemaking. Prohibition to Additional FAA questions concerning this final rule, On September 2, 2008, an Employees contact Paul G. Greer, Federal Aviation independent review team, appointed by Two individual commenters stated Administration, Office of the Chief former Secretary of Transportation Mary that the provisions in the proposed rule Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue, E. Peters on May 1, 2008 to examine the should be expanded to include FAA

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52232 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

regional and headquarters personnel. management typically do not develop apply regardless of the manner by They commented that individuals in those close working relationships that which the AFS ASI terminates his or her regional and headquarters positions the agency believes would necessitate employment with the agency. exert power and influence and should the imposition of post-employment In response to the comment that the also be covered by the provisions in the restrictions on certificate holders set provisions in the rule should be limited rule. Another individual noted the forth in this final rule. Operators can to part 121 certificate holders the FAA challenge of trying to regulate integrity still employ former AFS ASIs in notes that close working relationships and that, using the same justification as numerous positions. However, these leading to potential conflicts of interest stated in the NPRM, all former FAA former AFS ASIs may not represent the can occur regardless of the type of employees should never be allowed to operator in any matter before the FAA operation being conducted. Therefore, become FAA Designees, such as if in the preceding 2-year period that the FAA has determined these Designated Engineering Representatives, person (1) directly served as, or was restrictions should apply to those Designated Airworthiness directly responsible for the oversight of persons conducting operations under Representatives, Designated an AFS ASI, and (2) had direct parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, Manufacturing Inspection responsibility to inspect, or oversee the 145, and subpart K of part 91. Representatives, Organizational inspection of that operator. 3. Necessity for Proposed Restrictions Designated Airworthiness Although a commenter stated that the Representatives. rule should impose restrictions that Two commenters stated that the In the final rule, the FAA has limited would prohibit former FAA employees proposed rule is necessary. One the scope of employment restrictions to from becoming designees, FAA individual commented that a former certain types of operations. The designees do not represent the interest AFS ASI should not be able to work restrictions will apply to those persons of certificate holders, but rather serve as directly for the companies that were conducting operations under parts 121, representatives of the Administrator. under the AFS ASI’s oversight for 2 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145, 147, Additionally, the NPRM did not years, but should be able to work for and subpart K of part 91 employing propose the establishment of such companies that were not under the AFS former FAA personnel who had restrictions and the agency considers ASI’s oversight. A second individual oversight responsibilities for the the comments to be outside the scope of commented that airlines should not be operator [e.g. Office Managers, Assistant the notice. allowed to hire aviation safety Office Managers, Branch Managers, Unit inspectors because it is clearly a conflict 2. Burden on Former AFS Employees Supervisors, and Aviation Safety of interest and a danger to passengers. Inspectors assigned to a Flight One commenter stated that the The FAA recognizes the adverse Standards District Office (FSDO) or a provisions in the proposed rule create a safety effects of ‘‘regulatory capture’’ CMO]. AFS ASIs directly engaged in hardship for FAA employees who are and conflict of interest when certain certificate management typically leaving the agency, and suggested that former FAA employees leave the FAA develop close working relationships the restriction on employment be and are employed by an operation for with other AFS ASIs with whom they reduced to 6 months, instead of the which that person formerly had share direct oversight responsibilities proposed 2 years. The same commenter oversight duties. However, the FAA is for a particular operator. The FAA also suggested that the restriction not be also required to evaluate the safety believes that aviation safety could be applied to anyone who was fired or has benefits of the final rule against compromised if a former AFS ASI, retired, and also suggested that the potential regulatory burdens. To achieve acting on behalf of the operator, is able restriction be limited to part 121 the safety benefits of this final rule, the to exert undue influence on current operators since the FAA has no data FAA does not find it necessary to FAA employees with whom he or she indicating that this action is warranted prohibit a former FAA employee from had established close working for certificate holders engaged in being hired for positions such as a pilot, relationships while working at a FSDO activities under other parts. flight attendant, mechanic, training or a CMO. The FAA selected a 2-year period for instructor, etc. for an operation for In the final rule the FAA has not the duration of this restriction. This which they formally had oversight, as extended the restrictions to the regulation will mirror a corresponding long as the former FAA employee does employment of all former FAA regional requirement found in current AFS not represent that operator to the FAA. and headquarters personnel. However, policy which provides for a 2-year In addition, the FAA does not find it these individuals are not without ‘‘cooling off’’ period for newly necessary to permanently bar a former restrictions regarding post-FAA employed AFS ASIs. This AFS policy FAA employee from any job for any employment, as there are currently prohibits new ASIs from having aviation employer after that former FAA restrictions that apply to FAA managers certificate management responsibilities employee has completed a 2-year and executives. Section 207(a)(1) of for their former aviation employer ‘‘cooling off’’ period. Title 18, United States Code (18 U.S.C.) during this 2-year period. The final rule Therefore, in the final rule, these generally places a permanent restriction will not change this longstanding FAA restrictions would only apply if the on former executive branch employees policy. It will, however, create a individual, in the preceding 2-year (including FAA employees) regarding corresponding requirement applicable period: Directly served as, or was their ability to represent a person in to operators who seek to employ certain directly responsible for the oversight of, connection with a particular matter in former FAA AFS ASIs and those an AFS ASI; and had direct which the United States government has responsible for their oversight. responsibility to inspect, or oversee the a direct and substantial interest and in In response to the comment that the inspections of the operator and that which that person participated restriction not be applied to anyone who individual acts as an agent or a personally and substantially. was fired or has retired, the FAA notes representative of the operator in any The FAA has determined that the that the method by which an AFS ASI’s matter before the FAA. The restrictions scope of the restrictions in the final rule employment is terminated does not would not apply to operators for whose is appropriate. FAA employees not have any bearing on potential conflicts oversight the AFS ASI was not directly directly engaged in certificate of interest. Therefore, the restrictions responsible.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52233

C. Summary of the Final Rule unnecessary obstacles to the foreign established close working relationships. This final rule will prohibit any commerce of the United States. In This post-employment prohibition also person holding a certificate to conduct developing U.S. standards, the Trade applies to the more likely case of former operations under parts 121, 125, 133, Act requires agencies to consider AFS ASIs who would become 135, 137, 141, 142, 145, or 147 from international standards and, where consultants to the operator. By knowingly employing, or making a appropriate, that they be the basis of prohibiting such relationships, the contractual arrangement with, certain U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded public will have greater confidence in individuals to act as an agent or a Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. the FAA’s independence from the representative of the certificate holder 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a aviation industry and in the integrity of in any matter before the FAA under written assessment of the costs, benefits, the FAA inspection system. Such certain conditions. These restrictions and other effects of proposed or final benefits from this increased public will apply if the individual, in the rules that include a Federal mandate confidence in the integrity of the FAA preceding 2-year period: directly served likely to result in the expenditure by inspection process cannot be quantified. State, local, or Tribal governments, in The final rule also creates some minor as, or was directly responsible for the the aggregate, or by the private sector, of inefficiencies. An operator can benefit oversight of, an AFS ASI; and had direct $100 million or more annually (adjusted from employing a former AFS ASI who responsibility to inspect, or oversee the for inflation with base year of 1995). had direct oversight responsibilities for inspection of, the operations of the This portion of the preamble that operator because that AFS ASI not certificate holder. This final rule will summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the only knows more about FAA processes also apply to persons who own or economic impacts of this rule. than someone who had not worked for manage fractional ownership program Department of Transportation Order the FAA, but also, would know more aircraft that are used to conduct DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and about the operator than other former operations under subpart K of part 91. procedures for simplification, analysis, AFS ASIs. Further, a former AFS ASI This final rule will establish these and review of regulations. If the from a specific FSDO or CMO will have restrictions to prevent potential expected cost impact is so minimal that greater knowledge about that office (as organizational conflicts of interests a proposed or final rule does not well as be better acquainted with the which could adversely affect aviation warrant a full evaluation, this order people in that office) than would a safety. The final rule is identical to the permits that a statement to that effect former AFS ASI from a different office. proposal. and the basis for it to be included in the For example, some operators may II. Paperwork Reduction Act preamble if a full regulatory evaluation believe that employing a former AFS of the cost and benefits is not prepared. ASI who recently had direct oversight The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Such a determination has been made for responsibilities for their operations (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the this rule. The reasoning for this would reduce the time to obtain FAA FAA consider the impact of paperwork determination follows: approval for manual upgrades and and other information collection revisions partially due to the personal burdens imposed on the public. The Who Will Be Potentially Affected by relationships between the former AFS FAA has determined that there is no This Final Rule ASI and current FAA employees. In new requirement for information This final rule will affect current and such a case, an operator would be more collection associated with this final future AFS ASIs and persons likely to employ this former AFS ASI rule. responsible for their oversight who than to employ a former AFS ASI who III. International Compatibility would perform work after the effective did not have direct oversight date of the rule for an operator for responsibilities for that operator. Due to In keeping with U.S. obligations which they had direct oversight the general similarities among the under the Convention on International responsibilities when employed by the groups of operators, the potential Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to FAA. It will also affect operators that inefficiencies from employing a former conform to International Civil Aviation would have hired former FAA AFS ASI who did not have direct Organization (ICAO) Standards and employees who had direct oversight oversight responsibilities for that Recommended Practices to the responsibilities for those operators. operator will not be significant. Thus, maximum extent practicable. The FAA Finally, this rule will apply to fractional from the societal point of view, the has determined that there are no ICAO owners or fractional ownership program overall losses to some individual former Standards and Recommended Practices managers who conduct operations FAA inspectors will be largely offset by that correspond to these regulations. under subpart K of part 91. gains to other former FAA inspectors or IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses other qualified personnel. Although the Potential Benefits and Costs final rule will create income transfers A. Regulatory Evaluation The final rule’s primary benefit will among individuals, at this time, we Changes to Federal regulations must be to prevent potential organizational cannot quantify this overall loss on an undergo several economic analyses. conflicts of interest. The non- individual basis. From a societal basis, First, Executive Order 12866 directs that quantifiable benefits resulting from this the safety differential paid for the each Federal agency shall propose or effect will be to minimize any potential incremental loss in knowledge will be adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned public perception that: (1) An AFS ASI very small. We received no public determination that the benefits of the could compromise current aviation comments quantifying the amount of intended regulation justify its costs. safety if that individual were to be losses that any individual will face from Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act promised post-FAA employment by an this rule. of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires operator over which that individual has The number of former AFS ASIs who agencies to analyze the economic direct oversight responsibilities; and (2) leave the FAA varies from year to year. impact of regulatory changes on small a former FAA employee working for an We used fiscal year 2008 (October 1, entities. Third, the Trade Agreements operator were to attempt to exert undue 2008, through September 30, 2009), as a Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies influence on current FAA employees representative year-long period to from setting standards that create with whom that former employee had evaluate the number of potentially

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52234 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

affected FAA employees. There were a To achieve this principle, agencies are have a substantial direct effect on the total of 163 AFS ASIs who left FAA required to solicit and consider flexible States, on the relationship between the employment during this fiscal year. regulatory proposals and to explain the national Government and the States, or Fifteen of these were from FAA rationale for their actions to assure that on the distribution of power and headquarters and not specifically such proposals are given serious responsibilities among the various assigned to a certificate holder. These consideration.’’ The RFA covers a wide- levels of government, and, therefore, AFS ASIs would not have been affected range of small entities, including small will not have federalism implications. businesses, not-for-profit organizations, by the rule. As shown in Table 1, of the VI. Environmental Analysis remaining 148 inspectors who left FAA and small governmental jurisdictions. employment, 103 voluntarily retired, 5 Agencies must perform a review to FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA retired due to disability, 17 resigned, 1 determine whether a rule will have a actions that are categorically excluded was removed, 6 were terminated during significant economic impact on a from preparation of an environmental their probation period, 2 had their substantial number of small entities. If assessment or environmental impact appointments terminated, and 14 died. the agency determines that it will, the statement under the National Thus, the maximum number of former agency must prepare a regulatory Environmental Policy Act in the inspectors who could have been affected flexibility analysis as described in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. had the rule been in effect are the 125 RFA. The FAA has determined this final non-headquarters personnel who retired However, if an agency determines that rulemaking action qualifies for the (voluntarily or with disability) or a rule is not expected to have a categorical exclusion identified in resigned. significant economic impact on a paragraph 312f and involves no substantial number of small entities, extraordinary circumstances. TABLE 1—REASONS THAT THE 148 section 605(b) of the RFA provides that VII. Regulations That Significantly NON–HEADQUARTERS INSPECTORS the head of the agency may so certify Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or and a regulatory flexibility analysis is LEFT FAA EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN Use not required. The certification must 10/1/08 AND 9/30/09 include a statement providing the The FAA analyzed this final rule factual basis for this determination, and under Executive Order 13211, Actions Number of Concerning Regulations that Reason for separation inspectors the reasoning should be clear. The final rule will only prevent an Significantly Affect Energy Supply, VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT 103 AFS ASI and persons responsible for Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The DISABILITY RETIREMENT .. 5 their oversight from acting as an agent agency has determined that it is not a RESIGNATION ...... 17 or representative of an operator before ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the REMOVAL ...... 1 the FAA when those persons had direct executive order and it is not likely to TERMINATION DURING oversight responsibilities for that have a significant adverse effect on the PROBATION PERIOD ...... 6 supply, distribution, or use of energy. TERMINATION OF AP- operator in the preceding two years. The POINTMENT ...... 2 cost to an operator of being unable to VIII. Availability of Rulemaking DEATH ...... 14 employ a specific individual will be Documents minimal because other individuals with TOTAL ...... 148 similar professional qualifications as A. Rulemaking Documents those possessed by the former AFS ASI An electronic copy of a rulemaking As concluded in the NPRM, we stated will be available. Therefore the FAA document my be obtained by using the that few of these former AFS ASIs will certifies that this final rule will not have Internet— become involved in post-FAA a significant economic impact on a 1. Search the Federal eRulemaking retirement employment. We further substantial number of small entities. Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); stated that this overall economic impact 2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and C. Unfunded Mandates Assessment will be minimal, with the potential Policies Web page at http:// benefits exceeding the costs. We Title II of the Unfunded Mandates www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or requested comments on this economic Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 3. Access the Government Printing analysis and received none. requires each Federal agency to prepare Office’s Web page at http:// Although the overall economic impact a written statement assessing the effects www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. will be minimal, with the potential of any Federal mandate in a proposed or Copies may also be obtained by benefits exceeding the costs this rule is final agency rule that may result in an sending a request (identified by notice, considered a ‘‘significant regulatory expenditure of $100 million or more (in amendment, or docket number of this action’’ for other reasons as defined in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 local, and Tribal governments, in the Administration, Office of Rulemaking, and is ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s aggregate, or by the private sector; such ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, Regulatory Policies and Procedures. a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently calling (202) 267–9680. uses an inflation-adjusted value of B. Comments Submitted to the Docket The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 $140.8 million in lieu of $100 million. (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a This final rule does not contain such a Comments received may be viewed by principle of regulatory issuance that mandate; therefore, the requirements of going to http://www.regulations.gov and agencies shall endeavor, consistent with Title II of the Act do not apply. following the online instructions to the objectives of the rule and of search the docket number for this applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and V. Executive Order 13132, Federalism action. Anyone is able to search the informational requirements to the scale The FAA has analyzed this final rule electronic form of all comments of the businesses, organizations, and under the principles and criteria of received into any of the FAA’s dockets governmental jurisdictions subject to Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We by the name of the individual regulation. determined that this action will not submitting the comment (or signing the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52235

comment, if submitted on behalf of an § 91.1050 Employment of former FAA § 119.73 Employment of former FAA association, business, labor union, etc.). employees. employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (a) Except as specified in paragraph IX. Small Business Regulatory (c) of this section, no certificate holder Enforcement Fairness Act (c) of this section, no fractional owner or fractional ownership program conducting operations under part 121 or The Small Business Regulatory manager may knowingly employ or 135 of this chapter may knowingly Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of make a contractual arrangement which employ or make a contractual 1996 requires FAA to comply with permits an individual to act as an agent arrangement which permits an small entity requests for information or or representative of the fractional owner individual to act as an agent or advice about compliance with statutes or fractional ownership program representative of the certificate holder and regulations within its jurisdiction. manager in any matter before the in any matter before the Federal A small entity with questions regarding Federal Aviation Administration if the Aviation Administration if the this document, may contact its local individual, in the preceding 2 years— individual, in the preceding 2 years— FAA official, or the person listed under (1) Served as, or was directly the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight heading at the beginning of the responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety preamble. To find out more about Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the rulemaking/sbre_act/. inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an List of Subjects operations of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager. individual shall be considered to be 14 CFR Part 91 acting as an agent or representative of a (b) For the purpose of this section, an certificate holder in a matter before the Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation individual shall be considered to be agency if the individual makes any safety. acting as an agent or representative of a written or oral communication on behalf 14 CFR Part 119 fractional owner or fractional ownership of the certificate holder to the agency (or program manager in a matter before the Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety. any of its officers or employees) in agency if the individual makes any connection with a particular matter, 14 CFR Part 125 written or oral communication on behalf whether or not involving a specific of the fractional owner or fractional Aircraft, Aviation safety. party and without regard to whether the ownership program manager to the individual has participated in, or had 14 CFR Part 133 agency (or any of its officers or responsibility for, the particular matter Aircraft, Aviation safety. employees) in connection with a while serving as a Flight Standards particular matter, whether or not Service aviation safety inspector. 14 CFR Part 137 involving a specific party and without (c) The provisions of this section do Aircraft, Aviation safety. regard to whether the individual has not prohibit a certificate holder from participated in, or had responsibility 14 CFR Part 141 knowingly employing or making a for, the particular matter while serving contractual arrangement which permits Educational facilities, Schools. as a Flight Standards Service aviation an individual to act as an agent or safety inspector. 14 CFR Part 142 representative of the certificate holder (c) The provisions of this section do in any matter before the Federal Educational facilities, Schools. not prohibit a fractional owner or Aviation Administration if the 14 CFR Part 145 fractional ownership program manager individual was employed by the from knowingly employing or making a certificate holder before October 21, Aircraft, Aviation safety. contractual arrangement which permits 2011. 14 CFR Part 147 an individual to act as an agent or representative of the fractional owner or PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND Aircraft, Educational facilities, OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A Schools. fractional ownership program manager in any matter before the Federal SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE The Amendment Aviation Administration if the PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM In consideration of the foregoing, the individual was employed by the PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 Federal Aviation Administration fractional owner or fractional ownership POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of program manager before October 21, GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD Federal Regulations, as follows: 2011. SUCH AIRCRAFT ■ PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR 5. The authority citation for part 125 FLIGHT RULES CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL continues to read as follows: OPERATORS Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– ■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716– continues to read as follows: ■ 3. The authority citation for part 119 44717, 44722. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, continues to read as follows: ■ 6. Add § 125.26 to read as follows: 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, § 125.26 Employment of former FAA 40102, 40103, 40113, 44105, 44106, 44111, employees. 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506– 44701–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 44906, 44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, (a) Except as specified in paragraph 12 and 29 of the Convention on International 46105. (c) of this section, no certificate holder Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). may knowingly employ or make a ■ 2. Add § 91.1050 to read as follows: ■ 4. Add § 119.73 to read as follows: contractual arrangement which permits

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52236 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

an individual to act as an agent or certificate holder in a matter before the contractual arrangement which permits representative of the certificate holder agency if the individual makes any an individual to act as an agent or in any matter before the Federal written or oral communication on behalf representative of the certificate holder Aviation Administration if the of the certificate holder to the agency (or in any matter before the Federal individual, in the preceding 2 years— any of its officers or employees) in Aviation Administration if the (1) Served as, or was directly connection with a particular matter, individual was employed by the responsible for the oversight of, a Flight whether or not involving a specific certificate holder before October 21, Standards Service aviation safety party and without regard to whether the 2011. inspector; and individual has participated in, or had (2) Had direct responsibility to responsibility for, the particular matter PART 141—PILOT SCHOOLS inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the while serving as a Flight Standards ■ operations of the certificate holder. 11. The authority citation for part 141 Service aviation safety inspector. continues to read as follows: (b) For the purpose of this section, an (c) The provisions of this section do individual shall be considered to be not prohibit a certificate holder from Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– acting as an agent or representative of a knowingly employing or making a 44703, 44707, 44709, 44711, 45102–45103, certificate holder in a matter before the contractual arrangement which permits 45301–45302. agency if the individual makes any an individual to act as an agent or ■ 12. Add § 141.34 to read as follows: written or oral communication on behalf representative of the certificate holder of the certificate holder to the agency (or § 141.34 Employment of former FAA in any matter before the Federal employees. any of its officers or employees) in Aviation Administration if the (a) Except as specified in paragraph connection with a particular matter, individual was employed by the whether or not involving a specific (c) of this section, no holder of a pilot certificate holder before October 21, school certificate or a provisional pilot party and without regard to whether the 2011. individual has participated in, or had school certificate may knowingly employ or make a contractual responsibility for, the particular matter PART 137—AGRICULTURAL arrangement which permits an while serving as a Flight Standards AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS individual to act as an agent or Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do ■ 9. The authority citation for part 137 representative of the certificate holder not prohibit a certificate holder from continues to read as follows: in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the knowingly employing or making a Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, contractual arrangement which permits 44701–44702. individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly an individual to act as an agent or ■ 10. Add § 137.40 to read as follows: responsible for the oversight of, a Flight representative of the certificate holder § 137.40 Employment of former FAA Standards Service aviation safety in any matter before the Federal inspector; and Aviation Administration if the employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (2) Had direct responsibility to individual was employed by the inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the (c) of this section, no certificate holder certificate holder before October 21, operations of the certificate holder. may knowingly employ or make a 2011. (b) For the purpose of this section, an contractual arrangement which permits individual shall be considered to be PART 133—ROTORCRAFT EXTERNAL- an individual to act as an agent or acting as an agent or representative of a LOAD OPERATIONS representative of the certificate holder certificate holder in a matter before the in any matter before the Federal agency if the individual makes any ■ 7. The authority citation for part 133 Aviation Administration if the continues to read as follows: written or oral communication on behalf individual, in the preceding 2 years— of the certificate holder to the agency (or (1) Served as, or was directly Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– any of its officers or employees) in 44702. responsible for the oversight of, a Flight connection with a particular matter, Standards Service aviation safety ■ 8. Add § 133.22 to read as follows: whether or not involving a specific inspector; and party and without regard to whether the § 133.22 Employment of former FAA (2) Had direct responsibility to individual has participated in, or had employees. inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the responsibility for, the particular matter operations of the certificate holder. (a) Except as specified in paragraph while serving as a Flight Standards (c) of this section, no certificate holder (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be Service aviation safety inspector. may knowingly employ or make a (c) The provisions of this section do acting as an agent or representative of a contractual arrangement which permits not prohibit a holder of a pilot school certificate holder in a matter before the an individual to act as an agent or certificate or a provisional pilot school agency if the individual makes any representative of the certificate holder certificate from knowingly employing or in any matter before the Federal written or oral communication on behalf making a contractual arrangement Aviation Administration if the of the certificate holder to the agency (or which permits an individual to act as an individual, in the preceding 2 years— any of its officers or employees) in agent or representative of the certificate (1) Served as, or was directly connection with a particular matter, holder in any matter before the Federal responsible for the oversight of, a Flight whether or not involving a specific Aviation Administration if the Standards Service aviation safety party and without regard to whether the individual was employed by the inspector; and individual has participated in, or had certificate holder before October 21, (2) Had direct responsibility to responsibility for, the particular matter 2011. inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the while serving as a Flight Standards operations of the certificate holder. Service aviation safety inspector. PART 142—TRAINING CENTERS (b) For the purpose of this section, an (c) The provisions of this section do individual shall be considered to be not prohibit a certificate holder from ■ 13. The authority citation for part 142 acting as an agent or representative of a knowingly employing or making a continues to read as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52237

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, Aviation Administration if the agency if the individual makes any 44101, 44701–44703, 44705, 44707, 44709– individual, in the preceding 2 years— written or oral communication on behalf 44711, 45102–45103, 45301–45302. (1) Served as, or was directly of the certificate holder to the agency (or ■ 14. Add § 142.14 to read as follows: responsible for the oversight of, a Flight any of its officers or employees) in Standards Service aviation safety connection with a particular matter, § 142.14 Employment of former FAA inspector; and whether or not involving a specific employees. (2) Had direct responsibility to party and without regard to whether the (a) Except as specified in paragraph inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the individual has participated in, or had (c) of this section, no holder of a operations of the certificate holder. responsibility for, the particular matter training center certificate may (b) For the purpose of this section, an while serving as a Flight Standards knowingly employ or make a individual shall be considered to be Service aviation safety inspector. contractual arrangement which permits acting as an agent or representative of a (c) The provisions of this section do an individual to act as an agent or certificate holder in a matter before the not prohibit a holder of an aviation representative of the certificate holder agency if the individual makes any maintenance technician school in any matter before the Federal written or oral communication on behalf certificate from knowingly employing or Aviation Administration if the of the certificate holder to the agency (or making a contractual arrangement individual, in the preceding 2 years— any of its officers or employees) in which permits an individual to act as an (1) Served as, or was directly connection with a particular matter, agent or representative of the certificate responsible for the oversight of, a Flight whether or not involving a specific holder in any matter before the Federal Standards Service aviation safety party and without regard to whether the Aviation Administration if the inspector; and individual has participated in, or had individual was employed by the (2) Had direct responsibility to responsibility for, the particular matter certificate holder before October 21, inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the while serving as a Flight Standards 2011. operations of the certificate holder. Service aviation safety inspector. (b) For the purpose of this section, an (c) The provisions of this section do Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, 2011. individual shall be considered to be not prohibit a holder of a repair station acting as an agent or representative of a certificate from knowingly employing or J. Randolph Babbitt, certificate holder in a matter before the making a contractual arrangement Administrator. agency if the individual makes any which permits an individual to act as an [FR Doc. 2011–21315 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] written or oral communication on behalf agent or representative of the certificate BILLING CODE 4910–13–P of the certificate holder to the agency (or holder in any matter before the Federal any of its officers or employees) in Aviation Administration if the connection with a particular matter, individual was employed by the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION whether or not involving a specific certificate holder before October 21, Federal Aviation Administration party and without regard to whether the 2011. individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter PART 147—AVIATION MAINTENANCE 14 CFR Part 97 while serving as a Flight Standards TECHNICIAN SCHOOLS [Docket No. 30798; Amdt. No. 3439] Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do ■ 17. The authority citation for part 147 Standard Instrument Approach not prohibit a holder of a training center continues to read as follows: Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums certificate from knowingly employing or Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– and Obstacle Departure Procedures; making a contractual arrangement 44702, 44707–44709. Miscellaneous Amendments which permits an individual to act as an ■ 18. Add § 147.8 to subpart A to read AGENCY: Federal Aviation agent or representative of the certificate as follows: Administration (FAA), DOT. holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the § 147.8 Employment of former FAA ACTION: Final Rule. employees. individual was employed by the SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, certificate holder before October 21, (a) Except as specified in paragraph suspends, or revokes Standard 2011. (c) of this section, no holder of an Instrument Approach Procedures aviation maintenance technician PART 145—REPAIR STATIONS (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff certificate may knowingly employ or Minimums and Obstacle Departure make a contractual arrangement which ■ Procedures for operations at certain 15. The authority citation for part 145 permits an individual to act as an agent continues to read as follows: airports. These regulatory actions are or representative of the certificate needed because of the adoption of new Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– holder in any matter before the Federal 44702, 44707, 44709, 44717. or revised criteria, or because of changes Aviation Administration if the occurring in the National Airspace ■ 16. Add § 145.160 to read as follows: individual, in the preceding 2 years— System, such as the commissioning of (1) Served as, or was directly new navigational facilities, adding new § 145.160 Employment of former FAA responsible for the oversight of, a Flight obstacles, or changing air traffic employees. Standards Service aviation safety requirements. These changes are (a) Except as specified in paragraph inspector; and (c) of this section, no holder of a repair (2) Had direct responsibility to designed to provide safe and efficient station certificate may knowingly inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the use of the navigable airspace and to employ or make a contractual operations of the certificate holder. promote safe flight operations under arrangement which permits an (b) For the purpose of this section, an instrument flight rules at the affected individual to act as an agent or individual shall be considered to be airports. representative of the certificate holder acting as an agent or representative of a DATES: This rule is effective August 22, in any matter before the Federal certificate holder in a matter before the 2011. The compliance date for each

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52238 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, Notice to Airmen (P–NOTAM), and is Conclusion and ODP is specified in the amendatory incorporated by reference in the provisions. amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 The FAA has determined that this The incorporation by reference of CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of regulation only involves an established certain publications listed in the the Code of Federal Regulations. body of technical regulations for which regulations is approved by the Director The large number of SIAPs, their frequent and routine amendments are of the Federal Register as of August 22, complex nature, and the need for a necessary to keep them operationally 2011. special format make their verbatim current. It, therefore— (1) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under ADDRESSES: Availability of matter publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a incorporated by reference in the ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT regulatory amendment is as follows: airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; For Examination depiction on charts printed by February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA publishers of aeronautical materials. evaluation as the anticipated impact is Headquarters Building, 800 Thus, the advantages of incorporation so minimal. For the same reason, the Independence Avenue, SW., by reference are realized and FAA certifies that this amendment will Washington, DC 20591; publication of the complete description 2. The FAA Regional Office of the of each SIAP contained in FAA form not have a significant economic impact region in which the affected airport is documents is unnecessary. This on a substantial number of small entities located; amendment provides the affected CFR under the criteria of the Regulatory 3. The National Flight Procedures sections and specifies the types of SIAP Flexibility Act. Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., and the corresponding effective dates. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, This amendment also identifies the 4. The National Archives and Records airport and its location, the procedure Air Traffic Control, Airports, Administration (NARA). For and the amendment number. Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air). information on the availability of this The Rule material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is 2011. federal_register/code_of_federal_ effective upon publication of each John M. Allen, regulations/ibr_locations.html. separate SIAP as amended in the Director, Flight Standards Service. Availability—All SIAPs are available transmittal. For safety and timeliness of online free of charge. Visit http:// change considerations, this amendment Adoption of the Amendment incorporates only specific changes nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, Accordingly, pursuant to the contained for each SIAP as modified by individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums authority delegated to me, Title 14, FDC/P–NOTAMs. and ODP copies may be obtained from: Code of Federal regulations, part 97, 14 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA– The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P– NOTAM, and contained in this CFR part 97, is amended by amending 200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Standard Instrument Approach Independence Avenue, SW., amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on Washington, DC 20591; or the dates specified, as follows: 2. The FAA Regional Office of the Terminal Instrument Procedures region in which the affected airport is (TERPS). In developing these changes to PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT located. SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied APPROACH PROCEDURES only to specific conditions existing at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the affected airports. All SIAP ■ Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure 1. The authority citation for part 97 amendments in this rule have been continues to read as follows: Standards Branch (AFS–420) Flight previously issued by the FAA in a FDC Technologies and Programs Division, NOTAM as an emergency action of Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, Flight Standards Service, Federal immediate flight safety relating directly 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721–44722. Aviation Administration, Mike to published aeronautical charts. The Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 circumstances which created the need ■ 2. Part 97 is amended to read as South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, for all these SIAP amendments requires follows: OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box making them effective in less than 30 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/ days. DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME telephone: (405) 954–4164. Because of the close and immediate or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule relationship between these SIAPs and LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; amends Title 14, Code of Federal safety in air commerce, I find that notice § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by and public procedure before adopting ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; amending the referenced SIAPs. The these SIAPs are impracticable and § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV complete regulatory description of each contrary to the public interest and, SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA where applicable, that good cause exists Identified as follows: Form 8260, as modified by the National for making these SIAPs effective in less Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent than 30 days. * * *Effective Upon Publication

AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject

22–Sep–11 ... MN RED WING ...... RED WING RGNL ...... 1/3885 7/21/11 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 2 22–Sep–11 ... WA RICHLAND ...... RICHLAND ...... 1/4363 7/13/11 LOC RWY 19, Amdt 7

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52239

AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject

22–Sep–11 ... NY ISLIP ...... LONG ISLAND MAC ARTHUR ...... 1/5760 7/21/11 ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 4 22–Sep–11 ... NY WHITE PLAINS ...... WESTCHESTER COUNTY ...... 1/5895 7/28/11 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16, Orig-A 22–Sep–11 ... IL BELLEVILLE ...... SCOTT AFB/MID AMERICA ...... 1/7157 7/28/11 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 14L, Orig-C 22–Sep–11 ... IL BELLEVILLE ...... SCOTT AFB/MID AMERICA ...... 1/7158 7/28/11 ILS OR LOC RWY 32R, Orig-C 22–Sep–11 ... IL BELLEVILLE ...... SCOTT AFB/MID AMERICA ...... 1/7159 7/28/11 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32L, Orig-B 22–Sep–11 ... IL BELLEVILLE ...... SCOTT AFB/MID AMERICA ...... 1/7160 7/28/11 ILS OR LOC RWY 14R, Orig-C 22–Sep–11 ... IL BELLEVILLE ...... SCOTT AFB/MID AMERICA ...... 1/7161 7/28/11 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14R, Orig-B 22–Sep–11 ... MI ANN ARBOR ...... ANN ARBOR MUNI ...... 1/7560 8/2/11 VOR RWY 24, Amdt 13B 22–Sep–11 ... MI ANN ARBOR ...... ANN ARBOR MUNI ...... 1/7561 8/2/11 VOR RWY 6, Amdt 13B

[FR Doc. 2011–21053 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] of the Federal Register as of August 22, 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125), BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 2011. Telephone: (405) 954–4164. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule incorporated by reference in the amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION amendment is as follows: Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or For Examination Federal Aviation Administration revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA and/or ODPS. The complete regulators 14 CFR Part 97 Headquarters Building, 800 description of each SIAP and its Independence Avenue, SW., associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP [Docket No. 30797; Amdt. No. 3438] Washington, DC 20591; for an identified airport is listed on FAA 2. The FAA Regional Office of the form documents which are incorporated Standard Instrument Approach region in which the affected airport is by reference in this amendment under 5 Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums located; U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 and Obstacle Departure Procedures; 3. The National Flight Procedures CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms Miscellaneous Amendments Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., are FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260–4, 8260– Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 5, 8260–15A, and 8260–15B when AGENCY: Federal Aviation 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (FAA), DOT. required by an entry on 8260–15A. Administration (NARA). For The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff ACTION: Final Rule. information on the availability of this Minimums and ODPs, in addition to material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, their complex nature and the need for or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ a special format make publication in the suspends, or revokes Standard _ federal register/ Federal Register expensive and Instrument Approach Procedures _ _ _ code of federal regulations/ impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff ibr_locations.html. Minimums and Obstacle Departure use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Availability—All SIAPs and Takeoff Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead Procedures for operations at certain Minimums and ODPs are available airports. These regulatory actions are refer to their depiction on charts printed online free of charge. Visit http:// by publishers of aeronautical materials. needed because of the adoption of new www.nfdc.faa.gov to register. or revised criteria, or because of changes The advantages of incorporation by Additionally, individual SIAP and reference are realized and publication of occurring in the National Airspace Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may System, such as the commissioning of the complete description of each SIAP, be obtained from: Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on new navigational facilities, adding new 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA– obstacles, or changing air traffic FAA forms is unnecessary. This 200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 amendment provides the affected CFR requirements. These changes are Independence Avenue, SW., designed to provide safe and efficient sections and specifies the types of SIAPs Washington, DC 20591; or and the effective dates of the associated use of the navigable airspace and to 2. The FAA Regional Office of the Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This promote safe flight operations under region in which the affected airport is amendment also identifies the airport instrument flight rules at the affected located. airports. and its location, the procedure, and the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: amendment number. DATES: This rule is effective August 22, Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure 2011. The compliance date for each Standards Branch (AFS–420), Flight The Rule SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, Technologies and Programs Divisions, This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is and ODP is specified in the amendatory Flight Standards Service, Federal effective upon publication of each provisions. Aviation Administration, Mike separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and The incorporation by reference of Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 ODP as contained in the transmittal. certain publications listed in the South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and regulations is approved by the Director OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box textual ODP amendments may have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52240 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

been issued previously by the FAA in a CFR part 97) is amended by Louisburg, NC, Triangle North Executive, Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to establishing, amending, suspending, or RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1 Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency revoking Standard Instrument Approach Louisburg, NC, Triangle North Executive, action of immediate flight safety relating Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1 directly to published aeronautical and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures Louisburg, NC, Triangle North Executive, charts. The circumstances which effective at 0902 UTC on the dates Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig created the need for some SIAP and specified, as follows: Louisburg, NC, Triangle North Executive, Takeoff Minimums and ODP VOR/DME–A, Amdt 2B Red Hook, NY, Sky Park, Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES and Obstacle DP, Orig, CANCELLED effective in less than 30 days. For the Red Hook, NY, Sky Park, VOR OR GPS RWY remaining SIAPS and Takeoff ■ 1, Amdt 5, CANCELLED Minimums and ODPS, an effective date 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Gallipolis, OH, Gallia-Meigs Rgnl, VOR OR at least 30 days after publication is GPS–B, Amdt 1, CANCELLED provided. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, Lebanon, OH, Lebanon-Warren County, Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Minimums and ODPS contained in this 44719, 44721–44722. Piqua, OH, Piqua Airport-Hartzell Field, amendment are based on the criteria ■ 2. Part 97 is amended to read as Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig contained in the U.S. Standard for follows: Holdenville, OK, Holdenville Muni, Takeoff Terminal Instrument Procedures Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Effective 22 SEP 2011 Providence, RI, Theodore Francis Green Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the Warren, AR, Warren Muni, Takeoff State, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 6 TERPS criteria were applied to the Minimums & Obstacle DP, Orig Providence, RI, Theodore Francis Green conditions existing or anticipated at the Ottumwa, IA, Ottumwa Rgnl, ILS OR LOC State, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 34, Amdt 11 affected airports. Because of the close RWY 31, Amdt 5B Providence, RI, Theodore Francis Green Ottumwa, IA, Ottumwa Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1 and immediate relationship between RWY 22, Orig-A, CANCELLED these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and Providence, RI, Theodore Francis Green Ottumwa, IA, Ottumwa Rgnl, Takeoff State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1 ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find Minimums & Obstacle DP, Orig-A Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, Takeoff that notice and public procedures before Red Oak, IA, Red Oak Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Cleveland, TX, Cleveland Muni, GPS RWY Minimums and ODPs are impracticable Storm Lake, IA, Storm Lake Muni, Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Orig 16, Orig-C, CANCELLED and contrary to the public interest and, Cleveland, TX, Cleveland Muni, RNAV (GPS) where applicable, that good cause exists Dwight, IL, Dwight, Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Orig RWY 16, Orig for making some SIAPs effective in less Pinckneyville, IL, Pinckneyville-Du Quoin, Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV (GPS) than 30 days. Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Orig RWY 31R, Amdt 1 Conclusion Elkhart, IN, Elkhart Muni, Takeoff Minimums Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV (GPS) and Obstacle DP, Orig Z RWY 13L, Amdt 1 The FAA has determined that this Detroit, MI, Coleman A. Young Muni, ILS OR Gilmer, TX, Fox Stephens Field-Gilmer regulation only involves an established LOC RWY 15, Amdt 10 Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, body of technical regulations for which Slayton, MN, Slayton Muni, Takeoff Orig frequent and routine amendments are Minimums & Obstacle DP, Orig Gruver, TX, Gruver Muni, Takeoff Minimums necessary to keep them operationally Florence, SC, Florence Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) and Obstacle DP, Orig RWY 9, Orig-A Hearne, TX, Hearne Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY current. It, therefore—(1) is not a Spearfish, SD, Black Hills-Clydes Ice Field, 18, Orig ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A Hearne, TX, Hearne Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Spearfish, SD, Black Hills-Clydes Ice Field, ‘‘significant rule ’’ under DOT RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-A 36, Orig Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Castroville, TX, Castroville Muni, Takeoff Hearne, TX, Hearne Muni, Takeoff FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/ does not warrant preparation of a Cleveland, TX, Cleveland Muni, Takeoff Houston, ILS OR LOC RWY 8R; ILS RWY regulatory evaluation as the anticipated Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Corsicana, TX, C David Campbell Fld- 8R (SA CAT II), Amdt 23B impact is so minimal. For the same Corsicana Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Moses Lake, WA, Grant Co Intl, ILS OR LOC reason, the FAA certifies that this Obstacle DP, Orig RWY 32R, Amdt 20B amendment will not have a significant Sherman, TX, Sherman Muni, Takeoff Toledo, WA, Ed Carlson Memorial Field- economic impact on a substantial Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig South Lewis Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, number of small entities under the Necedah, WI, Necedah, Takeoff Minimums Orig-A criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. and Obstacle DP, Orig Chetek, WI, Chetek Muni-Southworth, Effective 20 OCT 2011 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 East Troy, WI, East Troy Muni, GPS RWY 8, El Dorado, AR, South Arkansas Rgnl at Air Traffic Control, Airports, Orig, CANCELLED Goodwin Field, Takeoff Minimums and East Troy, WI, East Troy Muni, GPS RWY 26, Incorporation by reference, and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Navigation (air). Fort Pierce, FL, St Lucie County Intl, NDB– Orig, CANCELLED East Troy, WI, East Troy Muni, RNAV (GPS) Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, A, Orig-C RWY 8, Orig 2011. Lawrenceville, GA, Gwinnett County-Briscoe East Troy, WI, East Troy Muni, RNAV (GPS) John M. Allen, Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 RWY 26, Orig Director, Flight Standards Service. Livingston, MT, Mission Field, GPS RWY 22, East Troy, WI, East Troy Muni, VOR/DME– Adoption of the Amendment Orig-B, CANCELLED A, Amdt 1 Livingston, MT, Mission Field, RNAV (GPS) Solon Springs, WI, Solon Springs Muni, Accordingly, pursuant to the RWY 22, Orig Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig authority delegated to me, Title 14, Louisburg, NC, Triangle North Executive, ILS Laramie, WY, Laramie Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 4 12, Amdt 6A

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52241

Laramie, WY, Laramie Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY AFS–220, Flight Standards Service, air commerce by prescribing minimum 30, Amdt 7A Federal Aviation Administration, 800 standards required in the interest of [FR Doc. 2011–21052 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Independence Ave., SW., Washington, safety for the design and performance of BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DC 20591; telephone (202) 493–1422; aircraft; regulations and minimum facsimile (202) 267–5229; e-mail standards of safety for inspecting, [email protected]. servicing, and overhauling aircraft; and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION For aircraft certification questions regulations for other practices, methods, contact Robert Jones, Propulsion/ and procedures the Administrator finds Federal Aviation Administration Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM–112, necessary for safety in air commerce. Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft This regulation is within the scope of 14 CFR Part 121 Certification Service, Federal Aviation that authority because it prescribes new Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, safety standards for the operation of [Docket No.: FAA–2009–0675; SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; certain airplanes used in air carrier Amendment No. 121–356] telephone (425) 227–1234; facsimile service. (425) 227–1149; e-mail RIN 2120–AJ43 I. Summary of the Final Action [email protected]. Activation of Ice Protection For legal questions contact Douglas The FAA is creating new regulations Anderson, Office of Regional Counsel, in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations AGENCY: Federal Aviation ANM–7, Federal Aviation (14 CFR) part 121 (Operating Administration (FAA), DOT. Administration, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and ACTION: Final rule. Renton, Washington 98057–3356; Supplemental Operations) related to the telephone (425) 227–2166; facsimile operation of certain transport category SUMMARY: This action revises the (425) 227–1007; e-mail airplanes in icing conditions. To operating rules for flight in icing [email protected]. improve the safety of these airplanes conditions. For certain airplanes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: operating in icing conditions, the new certificated for flight in icing, the new regulations require either installation of standards require either installation of Authority for This Rulemaking ice detection equipment and procedures ice detection equipment or changes to The FAA’s authority to issue rules on for its use, or changes to the airplane the airplane flight manual to ensure aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the flight manual (AFM) to ensure timely timely activation of the airframe ice United States Code. Subtitle I, Section activation of the airframe ice protection protection system. This action is the 106 describes the authority of the FAA system. result of information gathered from Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation The economic evaluation for the final icing accidents and incidents. It is Programs, describes in more detail the rule shows that the benefits exceed the intended to increase the level of safety scope of the agency’s authority. costs for the nominal, seven, and three when airplanes fly in icing conditions. This rulemaking is promulgated percent present value rates. The DATES: This amendment becomes under the authority described in estimated benefits are $27.2 million effective October 21, 2011. Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section ($16.2 million present value). The total FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 44701. Under that section, the FAA is estimated costs are $12.7 million ($6.7 operational questions contact Charles J. charged with prescribing regulations million present value). The following Enders, Air Carrier Operations Branch, promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in table shows these results.

II. Background and developed a comprehensive, multi- surfaces of the airplane.2 The work was year icing plan. The FAA Inflight carried out by ARAC’s Ice Protection On October 31, 1994, an accident Aircraft Icing Plan, dated April 1997,1 Harmonization Working Group involving an Avions de Transport described various activities we were (IPHWG). Its recommendations may be Regional ATR 72 series airplane considering for improving aircraft safety found in the docket for this rulemaking occurred in icing conditions. This in icing conditions. In accordance with (FAA–2009–0675). prompted the FAA to initiate a review this plan, we tasked the Aviation of aircraft safety in icing conditions and Rulemaking Advisory Committee A. Summary of the NPRM determine what changes could be made (ARAC) to consider the need for ice On November 23, 2009, the FAA to increase the level of safety. In May detectors or other means to give published a notice of proposed 1996, we sponsored the International flightcrews early indication about action rulemaking (NPRM) based on ARAC’s Conference on Aircraft Inflight Icing, required for ice accumulating on critical recommendations to the FAA (74 FR where icing specialists made recommendations for increasing safety. 1 FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan, dated April 2 Published in the Federal Register on December We reviewed these recommendations 1997, is available in the Docket. 8, 1997 (62 FR 64621).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES ER22AU11.051 52242 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

61055). That NPRM proposed changes • Specific air temperatures to check • Initial activation of the ice to the regulations for operators of for which, in the presence of visible protection system, certain airplanes certificated for flight in moisture, will indicate conditions • Operation of the ice protection icing conditions that are operated under conducive to icing and the need to system after initial activation, and 14 CFR part 121. It proposed follow icing procedures. • Deactivation of the ice protection requirements for installation of ice This rule applies to airplanes system. detection equipment and/or changes to operating under part 121 rules with a These procedures must address the AFM to ensure timely activation of certified maximum takeoff weight whether, after initial activation, the ice the airframe ice protection system. The (MTOW) of less than 60,000 pounds. It protection system must be operated comment period for that NPRM closed requires— continuously or cycled automatically or on February 22, 2010. a. A primary ice detection system and manually. The rule also specifies that if appropriate activation equipment and an operator elects to install an ice B. Definitions procedures to ensure timely activation detection system, it must be approved An appendix to the preamble of this of the ice protection system, through an amended or supplemental rule gives definitions of the terms used b. An advisory ice detection system type certificate in accordance with part here. plus substantiated visual cues and 21. C. Related Activity procedures to ensure timely activation The FAA considers this rule to be a and, if necessary, repeated operation of necessary increase in the standard of The FAA is currently engaged in the ice protection system, or safety because there have been accidents rulemaking that would require operators c. If the airplane is not equipped to and incidents in which the flightcrew of airplanes to exit icing conditions for comply with either a or b above, that did not start the airframe ice protection which the airplane has not been flightcrews activate and continuously or system soon enough. In some cases, certified. Supercooled large droplet cyclically operate the ice protection crews were completely unaware of ice icing conditions may be an example of system when in icing conditions accumulation on the airframe. In other such conditions. during— cases, they knew that ice was D. Summary of Comments • The takeoff climb after second accumulating, but thought it not segment, significant enough to require activating The FAA received 56 comment • En route climb, the ice protection system. This rule is documents in response to the NPRM. • meant to prevent that from happening Some commenters submitted multiple Holding, • Maneuvering for approach and again by giving flightcrews a clear comments. means of knowing when to activate the • Twenty-two commenters (Boeing, landing, and • airframe ice protection system. Airbus, the Regional Airline Association Any other operation at approach or Following are the comments requesting (RAA), Air Line Pilots Association holding airspeeds. changes to the rule. International (ALPA), and 16 private Icing conditions will be indicated by citizens) expressed support for the a specific air temperature and the A. Training proposal in the NPRM. presence of visible moisture. The • flightcrew must operate the ice XCEL Jet Management commented Twenty-nine private citizens that poor training and airmanship in offered general comments on icing and protection at the first sign of ice accumulation for any other phases of relation to operating in icing conditions ice protection that did not specifically were responsible for both the Colgan address the proposal in the NPRM. flight until after exiting the icing conditions. When the ice protection Air 3 and ATR accidents and that better These commenters stated that the FAA pilot training was the solution. An had not done enough, early enough, to system is activated, the flightcrew must also initiate any additional procedures individual commenter suggested that solve the safety problems of flight in improved and more complete pilot icing conditions. Because these for operation in conditions conducive to icing specified in the AFM or the training were the real solutions for comments were beyond the scope of the reducing icing accidents and suggested NPRM’s proposal, we are not manual required by § 121.133. This third option of the rule permits that pilots should obtain a license responding to them in this preamble. endorsement for flight in icing. Neither • BAE Systems, XCEL Jet compliance without additional of these commenters felt that this Management, the National equipment. It supports part 121 additional operating rule was Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), operations of existing airplanes that are warranted. and two private citizens provided not equipped with ice detectors and While icing conditions were present critical or non-supportive comments to new airplanes designed in accordance at the time of the Colgan accident, the the proposal in the NPRM. with § 25.1419(e)(3). However, if the AFM prohibits these procedures, then NTSB did not find that these conditions III. Discussion of the Final Rule compliance must be demonstrated with either caused or contributed to the This final rule is identical to the rule either of the first two options. accident. Rather, the NTSB found that proposed in the NPRM. Its goal is to To eliminate any guesswork for the Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for ensure that ice protection systems are flightcrew in identifying icing airspeed selection and management activated in a timely way. It does this by conditions, this rule defines icing during approaches in icing condition relieving the flightcrew of the need for conditions as the presence of visible contributed to the accident. The Colgan judging when to activate the ice moisture in temperatures of 5° C or less Air flightcrew was operating the ice protection system. It gives the static air temperature or 10° C or less protection system properly, and the flightcrew— total air temperature, unless the AFM airplane stall occurred very close to the • Primary ice detectors that will alert defines it differently. clean wing stall speed. The Bombardier them to icing, The rule requires that ice protection 3 • procedures be established in the AFM or The Colgan Air accident occurred on February Specific visual cues to indicate 12, 2009, when a Bombardier Model DHC–8–400 icing, supplemented by advisory ice the manual required by § 121.133, and series airplane flying in icing conditions crashed detectors, or that they address— outside of Buffalo, NY, killing 50 people.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52243

Model DHC–8–400 series airplane that system activation during cruise at the E. Residual and Intercycle Ice those pilots were flying has an advisory first sign of icing. BAE suggested that the larger ice ice detection system that helped them We have not changed the rule based accretions assessed during certification know when to activate the ice on this comment. might be safer than ice accumulated protection system. Pilots may fail to when operating the ice protection activate an ice protection system for any C. Does the rule include withdrawn airworthiness directives (ADs)? system in conditions conducive to icing, number of reasons that could include at the first sign of icing, and at regular inattention, a heavy workload that BAE stated that it is not clear whether intervals thereafter. BAE also expressed causes ice monitoring vigilance to be the rule applies to airplanes for which concern that aircraft handling qualities reduced, or failure to detect the ice previously proposed ADs were and performance have not been because of environmental conditions. withdrawn. It is the FAA’s intent that demonstrated with these new Additional training may not effectively this new rule will apply to all airplanes procedures. BAE does not recommend address any of those issues. Thus, we with a certified MTOW less than 60,000 acceptance of this rule in its current proposed a rule that will require either pounds, whether or not original ADs form unless we can provide further actively alerting the pilot to icing requiring ice protection system justification for its adoption. conditions or causing the pilot to activation at the first sign of icing have We believe there is ample justification activate the ice protection system when been withdrawn. As discussed in the for this rule. In the initial stages of the a certain temperature exists in NPRM, the purpose of the ADs was to IPHWG’s examination of the problems conditions of visible moisture. The require that the ice protection system be of flight in icing, there was great exception to this would be during the activated at the first sign of icing. This concern about activating boot ice cruise phase, when activation of the ice assumes the flightcrew detects the icing. protection systems at the first sign of protection system at the first sign of The fact that we concluded there was no icing because of a phenomenon known icing will be required. This will ensure need to prevent delayed activation on as ice bridging.4 We infer this is the safe flight in icing conditions certain airplanes, and therefore reason BAE suggested larger ice independent of icing flight training. withdrew those ADs, is irrelevant to the accretions may be safer than those that Therefore, the proposed rule is not purpose of this rule. The purpose of this would be formed under this rule. No changed based on these comments. rulemaking is to ensure detection and one has reported ice bridging nor has it Note that many new training materials activation or, if operating without an ice been seen during testing on modern developed by National Aeronautics and detection system, timely activation in deicing boots. Classical ice bridging was Space Administration (NASA) have non-cruise flight. The FAA also finds associated with older designs that had been released in order to ensure that that, for airplanes not equipped with ice slow inflation and deflation rates; on the pilots have access to information that detectors, it is acceptable to activate the order of ten seconds. Modern systems, will give them the knowledge and skills ice protection system at the first sign of with their small-diameter inflation to safely and strategically fly in icing icing for any phase not identified in chambers and high inflation rates, conditions. § 121.321(a)(3)(i) (for example, cruise). ensure that bridging is not a concern. B. Require Automatic Detection and D. Existing Procedures Are Safe Enough We also infer from this comment a Activation concern that residual and intercycle ice BAE stated that original certification might be more critical than allowing a An individual commenter indicated of their airplanes for flight in icing was certain depth of ice to accrete before ice that the ice protection system should be based on the most adverse accretions protection system activation. This turned on automatically but in a determined from Appendix C to part 25, concern is limited to booted ice ‘‘sequence that would allow the crew to and that the procedures established protection systems. turn it off both before it activated and during this certification, including Persistent ice accretions occur in icing after it completed a cycle.’’ activation after accumulating one-half conditions even when pneumatic We understand from this that the inch of ice on the airframe, do not result deicing boots are operating. Whether commenter thinks automatic activation in an unsafe condition. one-quarter or one-half inch of ice is should be mandatory, but with features We agree that following the allowed to accumulate before activation, that allow the pilot to intercede. While established procedures does not result or the icing boots are activated at the automatic activation has advantages, we in an unsafe condition, as long as the first sign of ice accumulation, or they have not determined it should be flightcrew detects the icing and are activated at annunciation by an ice mandatory. The FAA does not dictate activates the ice protection system in detector system and periodically design of aircraft systems. Instead we accordance with those procedures. But afterwards, residual and intercycle ice provide performance-based rules. We several accidents and incidents have will exist. The procedure will minimize believe it should be up to the operator/ occurred because of failure to activate residual and intercycle ice accretions applicant to choose the best design for the ice protection system in a timely because the ice will shed when the its aircraft. Under this approach, an fashion. In some of those cases, critical minimum thickness or mass required for automatic activation design would be ice formed before the crew activated the shedding is reached. Adverse airplane acceptable. Examples of other safe and ice protection system. Other cases have flying qualities resulting from ice acceptable options include— occurred when, for any number of accretions typically are affected by the • Primary ice detection with manual reasons, there was a delay in activating thickness, shape, texture, and location ice protection system activation, the ice protection system. This rule is of the ice. The thickness of the residual • Advisory ice detection and pilot intended to ensure timely detection of and intercycle ice resulting from this monitoring with manual ice protection icing on the airframe and activation of system activation, and the ice protection system. It helps 4 Ice bridging is a phenomenon that may have • Manual ice protection system ensure that ice protection system occurred on some obsolete de-icing boot systems. In theory, ice could form around the outside of a fully activation based on temperature and activation procedures are followed. inflated boot, forming a ‘‘bridge,’’ which then could visible moisture for non-cruise flight Therefore, the proposed rule is not not be removed by subsequent inflation cycles of phases, as well as manual ice protection changed based on this comment. the boot.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52244 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

procedure is less than what is typically this, the pilot only has to monitor time, and would have been in compliance allowed to accumulate before deicing not ice accretion thickness. Therefore, with this rule through the majority of its boot operation when the manufacturer we do not believe there will be any flight profile. Therefore, increasing the has recommended delayed activation. significant increase in workload, and maximum applicable weight to capture The FAA has written many ADs that the workload may decrease in some the Bombardier Model DHC–8–400 requiring airplane operators to include circumstances. series airplane would have very little, if in their AFM procedures to activate With respect to BAE’s comment that any, safety benefit. Increasing the rule’s deicing boots at the first sign of ice validating ice protection system cycling weight applicability to encompass other accumulation. The airplane models to procedures and the potential for icing airplanes of this size and larger is not which these ADs were directed have certification testing was not raised in justified by available data. We have not many different wing and stabilizer the NPRM, every airplane that uses a changed the rule as a result of this design characteristics and different manual deicing system has established comment. deicing boot configurations. In addition, procedures for its operation until the Another reason the NTSB suggested they represent a large proportion of the airplane has exited icing conditions. that the rule should encompass heavier airplane fleet that is equipped with Models with periodic cycling airplanes is that it believes such pneumatic deicing boots. We have not procedures should require no procedures would also help protect received any reports of these airplanes incremental certification testing because these airplanes in conditions that fall suffering adverse effects of ice from they already have an approved periodic outside of Appendix C to part 25. This early activation of the deicing boots. cycling procedure. For airplanes in rule does not address conditions outside In addition, a number of airplane which flightcrews have in the past of Appendix C. In supercooled large models are equipped with deicing boot activated boots based on ice accretion droplet (SLD) conditions (which are not systems with automatic operating thickness, calculating a conservative included in Appendix C), ice may form modes. These systems automatically cycling interval based on Appendix C to aft of the ice protection system cycle at specific time intervals after part 25 is a relatively straightforward equipment. To suggest that this rule being initially activated. Such automatic process. It should not require flight may help address the SLD issue is not cycling has certainly resulted in testing. In addition, AC 121.321–X correct. The most significant item to operation of the boots with less than the provides guidance recommending that consider, however, is that data show recommended thickness of ice accretion intervals should not exceed three that these heavier airplanes have not originally included in the AFMs. We minutes. Thus, we do not believe that had any safety problems associated with have received no reports indicating any validation of this procedure should delayed activation of the ice protection adverse effects from use of the require additional certification testing. system. Therefore, the rule is not automatic mode. Boot ice protection changed as a result of this comment. systems operated early and often to G. Include All Airplanes remove ice, including intercycle and The NTSB expressed support for the H. Include Parts 91 and 135 Operations residual ice, have performed safely and proposed rule. However, the NTSB The NTSB supported applying the effectively. We have not changed the stated that the rule should apply to all proposed rule to airplanes operated rule based on this comment. deicing-boot-equipped airplanes under part 121, but stated that a similar currently in service. This would include rule should also be levied on all F. Additional Certification Will Be airplanes weighing more than 60,000 airplanes operated under 14 CFR parts Necessary pounds. The NTSB also suggested that 91 and 135. The NTSB stated that on BAE noted that crews operating under the Bombardier Model DHC–8–400 parts 91 and 135 airplanes with ADs § 121.321(a)(3) (without ice detectors) series airplane (which has a MTOW of directing flightcrews to activate the ice need to activate the ice protection slightly more than 60,000 pounds and protection system at the first sign of system in conditions conducive to icing was involved in the Colgan Air icing, it can be difficult for crews to irrespective of whether ice is actually accident) might have been better identify icing on the airplanes. The accreting. For aircraft that do not have protected if this rule had been applied NTSB noted that a Circuit City Citation an automatic mode to cycle the ice to it. Model 560 series airplane involved in protection system, the continuous The FAA appreciates the NTSB’s an icing accident was operated under manual cycling of the system would support for the proposed rule. We do part 91 and had an AD for activation of result in an increased workload for the not believe, however, that it is necessary deicing boots at the first sign of icing, flightcrew. Section 121.321(d)(iv) to expand the rule to cover airplanes which had been withdrawn. This left requires that, for airplanes without with higher weights. The IPHWG data the flightcrew to observe a prescribed automatic cycling modes, procedures and analysis showed that only airplanes amount of ice before activation. The will be needed for a specific time falling below the weight level in the rule NTSB believed that similar accidents interval for repeated cycling of the ice have had problems associated with may occur if parts 91 and 135 airplanes protection system. BAE said that delayed activation of the ice protection are not included in this rule. validation of this procedure could system. We considered including parts 91 and require further icing certification As for the Bombardier Model DHC–8– 135 operations during deliberations of testing, and that this issue had not been 400 series airplane, while icing the IPHWG and during drafting of the raised in the NPRM. conditions were present at the time of NPRM. We determined, however, that With respect to increasing workload, the Colgan accident, the NTSB did not the increased flexibility afforded by currently pilots have to monitor for ice. find that these conditions either caused unscheduled operations (the types of Sometimes in these conditions it may be or contributed to the accident. Rather, operations governed by parts 91 and difficult to determine whether the NTSB found that Colgan Air’s 135), coupled with appropriate activation of the ice protection system is inadequate procedures for airspeed direction on when pilots should activate needed. This final rule requires that, selection and management during the ice protection systems (usually at after initial activation of the ice approaches in icing condition the first sign of icing or in conditions of protection system, the pilot periodically contributed to the accident. In fact, the visible moisture and specific activate the ice protection system. To do accident airplane had an ice detector temperatures), provides an adequate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52245

level of safety for ice protection system • Maneuvering for approach and consider international standards and, activation. Pilots flying scheduled landing, and where appropriate, that they be the basis operations, on the other hand, may not • Any other operation at approach or of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded have the flexibility to avoid flying into holding airspeeds. Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. weather that would otherwise be This rule may require operators to 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a avoided. This rule ensures that part 121 revise their airplane flight manuals or written assessment of the costs, benefits, operators of applicable airplanes will be the manual required by § 121.133. and other effects of proposed or final directed to operate the ice protection Adding these new procedures may rules that include a Federal mandate systems appropriately. require the addition of a page or two to likely to result in the expenditure by those manuals. This is classified as a State, local, or Tribal governments, in Paperwork Reduction Act record keeping item and no data will be the aggregate, or by the private sector, of The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 collected. $100 million or more annually (adjusted (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the We have received no comments about for inflation with base year of 1995). FAA consider the impact of paperwork the recordkeeping burden of this rule. This portion of the preamble and other information collection The OMB control number for this summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the burdens imposed on the public. information collection will be published economic impacts of this final rule. According to the 1995 amendments to in the Federal Register after the Office Readers seeking greater detail should the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR of Management and Budget approves it. read the full regulatory evaluation, a 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not International Compatibility copy of which we have placed in the collect or sponsor the collection of In keeping with U.S. obligations docket for this rulemaking. information, nor may it impose an under the Convention on International In conducting these analyses, FAA information collection requirement Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to has determined that this final rule: (1) unless it displays a currently valid conform to International Civil Aviation Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is Office of Management and Budget Organization (ICAO) Standards and not an economically ‘‘significant (OMB) control number. Recommended Practices to the regulatory action’’ as defined in section This final rule will impose the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) has following new information collection has determined that there are no ICAO been designated as a ‘‘significant requirements. As required by the Standards and Recommended Practices regulatory action’’ by the Office of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 that correspond to these regulations. Management and Budget, and is U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted therefore ‘‘significant’’ under DOT’s these proposed information collection IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) amendments to OMB for its review. Flexibility Determination, International will not have a significant economic This final rule requires— Trade Impact Assessment, and impact on a substantial number of small a. A primary ice detection system and Unfunded Mandates Assessment entities; (5) will not create unnecessary appropriate activation equipment and Changes to Federal regulations must obstacles to the foreign commerce of the procedures to ensure timely activation undergo several economic analyses. United States; and (6) will not impose of the ice protection system, First, Executive Order 12866 directs that an unfunded mandate on State, local, or b. An advisory ice detection system each Federal agency shall propose or Tribal governments, or on the private plus substantiated visual cues and adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned sector by exceeding the threshold procedures to ensure timely activation determination that the benefits of the identified above. These analyses are and, if necessary, repeated operation of intended regulation justify its costs. summarized below. the ice protection system, or Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule c. If the airplane is not equipped to of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires comply with either a or b above, that agencies to analyze the economic The estimated cost of this final rule is flightcrews activate and continuously or impact of regulatory changes on small about $12.7 million in nominal dollars cyclically operate the ice protection entities. Third, the Trade Agreements ($6.7 million in seven percent present system when in icing conditions Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies value terms). The estimated potential during— from setting standards that create benefits of averting one accident and • The takeoff climb after second unnecessary obstacles to the foreign five fatalities are about $22.1 million in segment, commerce of the United States. In nominal dollars ($11.4 million in seven • En route climb, developing U.S. standards, this Trade percent present value terms). Table 1 • Holding, Agreements Act requires agencies to shows these results.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES ER22AU11.052 52246 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Who is potentially affected by this rule? Estimated Costs of This Rule informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and Operators of transport category We estimate the total cost of the final governmental jurisdictions subject to airplanes with a certified MTOW under rule, over the analysis period, to be regulation. To achieve this principle, 60,000 pounds operating under 14 CFR about $12.7 million in nominal dollars agencies are required to solicit and part 121. using airplane compliance costs developed by the IPHWG. The seven consider flexible regulatory proposals Assumptions percent present value cost of this final and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are (1) The base year is 2010. rule over the analysis period is about $6.7 million. We estimate the initial given serious consideration.’’ The RFA (2) This final rule will be effective in covers a wide-range of small entities, 2011. costs for a new certification program for operating the deicing boots based on including small businesses, not-for- (3) The compliance date of the rule is profit organizations, and small visible moisture and temperature are 24 months from the effective date of the governmental jurisdictions. about $400,000. We estimate the final rule. Agencies must perform a review to (4) The analysis period extends for operating and training costs are about determine whether a rule will have a 20 years from 2013 through 2032. We $12.3 million. significant economic impact on a believe this analysis period captures Alternatives Considered substantial number of small entities. If nearly all of the expected benefits and the agency determines that it will, the costs. Alternative One agency must prepare a regulatory (5) All monetary values are expressed Maintain the status quo: Simply flexibility analysis as described in the in constant 2010 dollars. The present maintaining the status quo for flight in RFA. value of the potential 10-year benefit icing procedures would not be a The FAA has determined that this stream was calculated by discounting practice that is responsive to NTSB final rule will not have a significant the monetary values using three and recommendations and the FAA Inflight economic impact on a substantial seven percent present value rates over Aircraft Icing Plan. The FAA has number of small entities. The FAA the 2013 to 2032 analysis period. rejected this alternative because the made the same determination in the (6) The value of an averted fatality is final rule will enhance passenger safety NPRM. There were no comments $6.0 million.5 and prevent ice-related accidents for regarding small entities for the NPRM. The following briefly describes the (7) The FAA used a $104.99 hourly airplanes with a certified MTOW less history leading up to this rulemaking rate for a mechanic/technician working than 60,000 pounds. As it stands, the and the methodology used to determine for an airplane manufacturer or modifier final rule is the reasoned result of the that this final rule will not have a and an $86.48 hourly rate for an FAA Administrator carrying out the FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan. significant economic impact on a engineer working for an airplane substantial number of small entities. manufacturer or modifier. These hourly Alternative Two On October 31, 1994, at 1559 Central rates include overhead costs.6 Issue more ADs requiring a means to Standard Time, an Avions de Transport Benefits of This Rule know when to activate the icing Regional model ATR 72, operated by protection system: The FAA has already Simmons Airlines, Incorporated, and The benefits of this final rule consist issued ADs to address activation of icing doing business as American Eagle flight of the value of averted fatalities, protection systems. An evaluation of 4184, crashed during a rapid descent airplane loss, and investigation cost accidents and incidents led to the after an uncommanded roll excursion. from avoiding accidents involving conclusion that the ADs do not provide The FAA, Aerospatiale, the French transport category airplanes with a adequate assurance that the flightcrew Direction Ge´ne´rale de l’Aviation Civile, certified MTOW under 60,000 pounds will be made aware of when to activate Bureau Enquete Accident, NASA, operating under 14 CFR part 121. We the icing protection system. Because NTSB, and others conducted an estimate that one accident and five this problem is not unique to particular extensive investigation of this accident. fatalities could potentially be avoided, airplane designs, but exists for all This accident and the investigation over the analysis period, by adopting airplanes susceptible to the icing prompted the FAA to initiate a review the final rule. The value of an averted hazards described previously, it is of aircraft inflight icing safety and fatality is assumed to be $6.0 million. A appropriate to address this problem determine changes that could be made series of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) through an operational rule, rather than to increase the level of safety. The final were issued for airplanes with by ADs. rule is responsive to NTSB pneumatic de-icing boots to activate the recommendation A–07–14. The final systems at the first sign of ice accretion. Alternative Three rule is also one of the items listed in the Due to the similarity of requirements Issue new standards: The third FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan, dated between the ADs and this proposal, we alternative is this final rule. The FAA’s April 1997. The Inflight Aircraft Icing accounted for the effects of the ADs by judgment is that this is the most viable Plan details the FAA’s plans for reducing the estimated benefits. Over option because the final rule will improving the safety of airplanes when the analysis period, the potential increase the safety of the flying public they are operated in icing conditions. benefits of the final rule will be $22.1 by reducing icing-related accidents in This final rule specifically applies to million in nominal dollars ($11.4 the future in the least costly way. part 121 operators of airplanes that have million in seven percent present value a certified MTOW of less than 60,000 terms). Regulatory Flexibility Determination pounds. We have determined which The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 small entities could be affected by 5 ‘‘Treatment of the Economic Value of a (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a associating airplanes with a certified Statistical Life in Departmental Analysis,’’ March principle of regulatory issuance that MTOW of less than 60,000 pounds with 18, 2009, U.S. Department of Transportation Memorandum. agencies shall endeavor, consistent with part 121 operators. For this section of 6 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. the objectives of the rule and of the analysis, only those operators Occupational Employment and Wages. applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and meeting the above criteria that have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52247

1,500 or fewer employees are that each of the small operators’ costs occurred in year four of the considered. airplanes is retired when their airplanes analysis period. Note that the more To estimate the number of affected reach the average retirement age of 25.9 airplanes in a major airplane group, the airplanes, the FAA analyzed the current years. less expensive, per airplane, the non- active fleet of airplanes, a forecast of Using information provided by the recurring costs are to the operators of airplanes affected by the final rule World Aviation Directory, SEC filings, those airplanes. In addition to the entering the fleet, and a forecast of the and the Internet, scheduled and non- airplane flight manual cost, the retired affected airplanes exiting the scheduled commercial operators that are additional incremental recurring costs fleet during the analysis period. subsidiary businesses of larger include boot maintenance, replacement A list of all U.S. operated civilian businesses were eliminated from the and installation labor. These recurring airplanes operating under part 121 was database. An example of a subsidiary costs started in 2013 and continued generated by the FAA Flight Standards business is Continental Express, Inc., either until the airplane retired or Service. Each airplane group was which is a subsidiary of Continental through the end of the analysis period. matched with its current (as of May Airlines. Using information provided by The degree to which small air 2010) MTOW and average age through the U.S. Department of Transportation operator entities can ‘‘afford’’ the cost of the use of the OAG FleetPCTM database. Form 41 filings, the World Aviation compliance is determined by the All airplanes with a MTOW greater than Directory Winter 2009, and the Internet, availability of financial resources. The 60,000 pounds were eliminated. all businesses with more than 1,500 initial implementation costs of the final Using industry sources, the FAA employees were eliminated. The FAA rule may be financed, paid for using determined which airplanes currently obtained company revenue from the existing company assets, or borrowed. A had primary or advisory icing detection remaining businesses. Following this proxy for the firm’s ability to afford the systems. Airplanes equipped with either approach, five small entities operate cost of compliance is the ratio of the a primary or advisory ice detection airplanes that will be affected by this total annualized cost of the final rule as system are in compliance, and this final proposal. a percentage of annual revenue. No rule will impose no costs to operators of The FAA estimated the cost of small business operator potentially those airplanes. All turbojets affected by compliance per airplane and multiplied affected by this final rule incurred costs this proposal are in compliance because this cost by the total fleet of affected greater than one percent of its annual those airplanes are equipped with either airplanes per operator, over the analysis revenue. On that basis, we believe firms a certificated primary or advisory ice period, to obtain the total compliance can afford the compliance costs of this detection systems. cost for each small entity. The non- final rule. We used a similar metric for The FAA used the OAG FleetPCTM recurring costs, for updating the the initial regulatory flexibility analysis database and determined that airplane flight manual for each major and received no comments. Table 2 turboprops are retired from U.S. airplane group, were distributed equally shows the economic impact on the certificated service at an average age among the airplanes in each major small entity air operators affected by (mean) of 25.9 years. Thus, we assume airplane group. These non-recurring this final rule.

Therefore as the FAA Administrator, International Trade Impact Assessment from establishing standards or engaging I certify that this rule will not have a in related activities that create significant economic impact on a The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 unnecessary obstacles to the foreign substantial number of small entities. (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the commerce of the United States. Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. Pursuant to these Acts, the L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES ER22AU11.053 52248 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

establishment of standards is not make any regulatory distinctions Small Business Regulatory Enforcement considered an unnecessary obstacle to applicable to intrastate aviation in Fairness Act the foreign commerce of the United Alaska. The Small Business Regulatory States, so long as the standard has a Environmental Analysis Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of legitimate domestic objective, such the 1996 requires FAA to comply with protection of safety, and does not FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA small entity requests for information or operate in a manner that excludes actions that are categorically excluded advice about compliance with statutes imports that meet this objective. The from preparation of an environmental and regulations within its jurisdiction. If statute also requires consideration of assessment or environmental impact you are a small entity and you have a international standards and, where statement under the National question regarding this document, you appropriate, that they be the basis for Environmental Policy Act in the may contact your local FAA official, or U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed absence of extraordinary circumstances. the person listed under the FOR FURTHER the potential effect of this final rule and The FAA has determined this INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the determined that the proposed standards rulemaking action qualifies for the beginning of the preamble. You can find are necessary for aviation safety and categorical exclusion identified in out more about SBREFA on the Internet will not create unnecessary obstacles to paragraph 312f and involves no at http://www.faa.gov/ the foreign commerce of the United extraordinary circumstances. regulations_policies/rulemaking/ States. _ Regulations That Significantly Affect sbre act/. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Appendix—Definition of Terms Used in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates This Rule Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) The FAA has analyzed this final rule requires each Federal agency to prepare under Executive Order 13211, Actions For purposes of this final rule, the Concerning Regulations that following definitions are applicable. Note a written statement assessing the effects that some of these definitions are common to of any Federal mandate in a proposed or Significantly Affect Energy Supply, those used in the preamble to the final rule final agency rule that may result in an Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We for § 25.1419 Ice protection, and that rule’s expenditure of $100 million or more (in have determined that it is not a accompanying guidance material. 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the a. Advisory ice detection system—A system local, and Tribal governments, in the executive order because, while it is that advises the flightcrew of the presence of aggregate, or by the private sector; such considered a ‘‘significant regulatory ice accretion or icing conditions. Both primary ice detection systems and advisory a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant action’’ under DOT’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures, it is not likely to have ice detection systems can either direct the regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently pilot to manually activate the ice protection uses an inflation-adjusted value of a significant adverse effect on the system or provide a signal that automatically $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. supply, distribution, or use of energy. activates the ice protection system. However, This final rule does not contain such a Availability of Rulemaking Documents because it has lower reliability than a mandate; therefore, the requirements of primary system, an advisory ice detection Title II of the Act do not apply. You can get an electronic copy of system can only be used in conjunction with other means (most commonly, visual Executive Order 13132, Federalism rulemaking documents using the observation by the flightcrew) to determine Internet by— the need for, or timing of, activating the anti- The FAA has analyzed this final rule icing or deicing system. With an advisory ice under the principles and criteria of 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); detection system, the flightcrew is Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We responsible for monitoring icing conditions have determined that this action will 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and or ice accretion as defined in the airplane not have a substantial direct effect on Policies Web page at http:// flight manual (AFM), typically using total air the States, or the relationship between www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or temperature and visible moisture criteria or visible ice accretion. With an advisory ice the Federal Government and the States, 3. Accessing the Government Printing or on the distribution of power and detection system, the flightcrew is Office’s Web page at http:// responsible for activating the anti-icing or responsibilities among the various www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. deicing system(s). levels of government, and, therefore, You can also get a copy by sending a b. Airframe icing—Ice accretion on the does not have federalism implications. request to the Federal Aviation airplane, except for on the propulsion system. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Administration, Office of Rulemaking, c. Anti-icing—Prevention of ice accretions Aviation in Alaska ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, on a protected surface, either by: Section 1205 of the FAA SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by • Evaporating the impinging water, or Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to • Allowing the impinging water to run 3213) requires the FAA, when identify the notice, amendment, or back and off the protected surface or freeze modifying its regulations in a manner docket number of this rulemaking. on non-critical areas. d. Automatic cycling mode—A mode of affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to Anyone is able to search the operation of the airframe de-icing system that consider the extent to which Alaska is electronic form of all comments provides repetitive cycles of the system not served by transportation modes received into any of our dockets by the without the need for the pilot to select each other than aviation, and to establish name of the individual submitting the cycle. This is generally done with a timer, appropriate regulatory distinctions. In comment (or signing the comment, if and there may be more than one timing the NPRM, we requested comments on submitted on behalf of an association, mode. whether the proposed rule should apply business, labor union, etc.). You may e. Conditions conducive to airframe icing— differently to intrastate operations in review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Visible moisture at or below a static air temperature of 5°C or total air temperature of Alaska. We did not receive any statement in the Federal Register 10°C, unless otherwise substantiated. comments, and we have determined, published on April 11, 2000 (Volume f. Deicing—The removal or the process of based on the administrative record of 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you removal of an ice accretion after it has this rulemaking, that there is no need to may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. formed on a surface.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52249

g. Ice protection system (IPS)—A system to airframe icing unless it complies with Manual or in the manual required by that protects certain critical aircraft parts this section. As used in this section, the § 121.133 must be initiated. from ice accretion. To be an approved phrase ‘‘conditions conducive to (b) If the procedures specified in system, it must satisfy the requirements of airframe icing’’ means visible moisture paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section are § 23.1419 or § 25.1419 and other applicable at or below a static air temperature of specifically prohibited in the Airplane requirements. ° ° h. Primary ice detection system—A 5 C or a total air temperature of 10 C, Flight Manual, compliance must be detection system used to determine when the unless the approved Airplane Flight shown with the requirements of IPS must be activated. This system Manual provides another definition. paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. announces the presence of ice accretion or (a) When operating in conditions (c) Procedures necessary for safe icing conditions, and it may also provide conducive to airframe icing, compliance operation of the airframe ice protection information to other aircraft systems. A must be shown with paragraph (a)(1), or system must be established and primary automatic system automatically (2), or (3) of this section. documented in: activates the anti-icing or deicing IPS. A (1) The airplane must be equipped (1) The Airplane Flight Manual for primary manual system requires the flightcrew to activate the anti-icing or deicing with a certificated primary airframe ice airplanes that comply with IPS upon indication from the primary ice detection system. § 121.321(a)(1) or (2), or detection system. (i) The airframe ice protection system (2) The Airplane Flight Manual or in i. Reference surface—The observed surface must be activated automatically, or the manual required by § 121.133 for used as a reference for the presence of ice on manually by the flightcrew, when the airplanes that comply with the monitored surface. The reference surface primary ice detection system indicates § 121.321(a)(3). may be observed directly or indirectly. Ice activation is necessary. (d) Procedures for operation of the must occur on the reference surface before— (ii) When the airframe ice protection airframe ice protection system must or at the same time as—it appears on the system is activated, any other include initial activation, operation after monitored surface. Examples of reference surfaces include windshield wiper blades or procedures in the Airplane Flight initial activation, and deactivation. bolts, windshield posts, ice evidence probes, Manual for operating in icing conditions Procedures for operation after initial the propeller spinner, and the surface of ice must be initiated. activation of the ice protection system detectors. The reference surface may also be (2) Visual cues of the first sign of ice must address— the monitored surface. formation anywhere on the airplane and (1) Continuous operation, j. Static air temperature—The air a certificated advisory airframe ice (2) Automatic cycling, temperature that would be measured by a detection system must be provided. (3) Manual cycling if the airplane is temperature sensor that is not in motion in (i) The airframe ice protection system equipped with an ice detection system relation to that air. This temperature is also must be activated when any of the that alerts the flightcrew each time the referred to in other documents as ‘‘outside air ice protection system must be cycled, or temperature,’’ ‘‘true outside temperature,’’ or visual cues are observed or when the ‘‘ambient temperature.’’ advisory airframe ice detection system (4) Manual cycling based on a time k. Total air temperature—The static air indicates activation is necessary; interval if the airplane type is not temperature plus the rise in temperature due whichever occurs first. equipped with features necessary to to the air being brought to rest relative to the (ii) When the airframe ice protection implement (d)(i)–(iii) of this section. airplane. system is activated, any other (e) System installations used to l. Visual cues—Ice accretion on a reference procedures in the Airplane Flight comply with § 121.321(a)(1) or (2) must surface that the flightcrew observes. The Manual for operating in icing conditions be approved through an amended or visual cue is used to detect the first sign of supplemental type certificate in airframe ice accretion. must be initiated. (3) If the airplane is not equipped to accordance with part 21 of this chapter. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 comply with the provisions of Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, Aircraft, Air carriers, Aviation safety, paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, 2011. Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping then the following apply: J. Randolph Babbitt, requirements. (i) When operating in conditions Administrator. conducive to airframe icing, the [FR Doc. 2011–21247 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] The Amendment airframe ice protection system must be BILLING CODE 4910–13–P In consideration of the foregoing, the activated prior to, and operated during, Federal Aviation Administration the following phases of flight: amends part 121 of title 14, Code of (A) Takeoff climb after second FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Federal Regulations as follows: segment, (B) En route climb, 16 CFR Parts 3 and 4 PART 121—OPERATING (C) Go-around climb, REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, (D) Holding, Rules of Practice AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS (E) Maneuvering for approach and landing, and AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission ■ 1. The authority citation for part 121 (F) Any other operation at approach (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’). continues to read as follows: or holding airspeeds. ACTION: Final rule amendments. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, (ii) During any other phase of flight, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711, the airframe ice protection system must SUMMARY: The FTC is amending its 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903– be activated and operated at the first Rules of Practice for its adjudicative 44904, 44912, 46105. sign of ice formation anywhere on the process, including those regarding the ■ 2. Revise § 121.321 to read as follows: airplane, unless the Airplane Flight initiation of discovery, limitations on Manual specifies that the airframe ice discovery, the Standard Protective § 121.321 Operations in Icing. protection system should not be used or Order, the admission of certain hearsay After October 21, 2013 no person may provides other operational instructions. evidence, the video recording of operate an airplane with a certificated (iii) Any additional procedures for proceedings, the designation of maximum takeoff weight less than operation in conditions conducive to confidentiality on documents, the 60,000 pounds in conditions conducive icing specified in the Airplane Flight timing for oral argument on appeal, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52250 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

a reference to the Equal Access to that addresses the deposition of fact document subject to this Order’’ given Justice Act. witnesses, timing of expert discovery, and that ‘‘confidential materials’’ is defined the production of documents and DATES: These amendments are effective in the Order’s first paragraph, replacing electronically stored information, dates for on August 22, 2011, and will govern all the current description of protection for the submission and hearing of motions, the ‘‘information taken from any portion of Commission adjudicatory proceedings specific method by which exhibits shall be that are commenced after that date. numbered or otherwise identified and such document[s]’’; They will also govern all Commission marked for the record, and the time and place (4) add to the fifth paragraph a adjudicatory proceedings that are of a final prehearing conference. missing reference to ‘‘Paragraph 1’’; and (5) clarify and make consistent pending on August 22, 2011, except to To make clear that discovery shall not the extent that, in the opinion of the language in the sixth paragraph commence before the issuance of the regarding documents with ‘‘masked or Commission, their application to a prehearing scheduling order’s plan of particular proceeding would not be otherwise redacted copies of documents discovery absent an express agreement [that] may be produced’’ by replacing feasible or would work an injustice. of the parties, the Commission is adding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ‘‘deleted’’ where used with ‘‘masked or language to Section 3.31(a) stating that, redacted.’’ Robert B. Mahini, Attorney, (202) 326– not including the mandatory initial 2642, Office of the General Counsel, disclosures required under paragraph Section 3.31A: Expert Discovery Federal Trade Commission, 600 (b) of the same Section, discovery The Commission is adding a new Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington demands shall not commence before the paragraph (e) to Section 3.31A regarding DC 20580. issuance of the prehearing scheduling materials that the parties cannot SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 1, order, unless the parties expressly agree discover. This new paragraph includes 2009, the Commission implemented otherwise. language from what was the last changes to Parts 3 and 4 of the agency’s In addition, the Commission is sentence of paragraph (d), which will Rules of Practice.1 After further review amending Section 3.31(c) to make clear now state that ‘‘[a] party may not of these changes and other aspects of that the section’s rules regarding the discover facts known or opinions held Parts 3 and 4, the Commission is making scope of discovery apply to all by an expert who has been retained or new changes to the Rules of Practice, discovery under Part 3 of the Rules of specifically employed by another party which are discussed below. The Practice. The Commission also is in anticipation of litigation or immediate implementation of this rule amending language in this paragraph to preparation for hearing and who is not without prior notice and the make clear that the section’s overall listed as a witness for the evidentiary opportunity for public comment is limitations on discovery in paragraph hearing,’’ and new language that is appropriate because this rule is one of (c)(2) and the restriction on discovery of nearly identical to language recently agency procedure and practice and electronically stored information in added to Federal Rule of Civil therefore is exempt from notice and paragraph (c)(3) apply to discovery Procedure 26(b)(4)(B) and (C), which comment rulemaking requirements and aimed at third parties, in addition to the specifically prohibits discovery of from the 30-day publication parties to the proceeding. expert report drafts and, with some requirement under the Administrative exceptions, communications between a Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)–(B) & Section 3.31 App. A: Standard party’s attorney and its experts. Adding (d).2 Protective Order. to the limitation of what was the last Section 3.31: General Discovery The Commission is amending the sentence of paragraph (d), the new Provisions. Standard Protective Order at Section language taken largely from the Federal 3.31 App. A to make the following Rules specifically provides that parties The Commission is amending Section changes: may not discover drafts of any report 3.31(a) to clarify that discovery (1) Add the missing word required by Section 3.31A, regardless of demands cannot commence before the ‘‘information’’ to the first sentence of the form in which the draft is recorded. procedure set forth in Section 3.21(c). the first paragraph; In addition, the new language prohibits Under Section 3.21(c), the (2) more clearly define in the second parties from discovering any Administrative Law Judge, paragraph the scope of the communications, regardless of form, [n]ot later than 2 days after the scheduling confidentiality afforded to materials between another party’s attorney and conference, [must] enter an order that sets submitted by respondents or third any of its testifying expert witnesses, forth the results of the conference and parties during an investigation or unless the communication: (1) Relates to establishes a schedule of proceedings that will permit the evidentiary hearing to administrative proceeding by referring, the expert’s compensation for the study commence on the date set by the in addition to confidentiality or testimony; (2) identifies facts or data Commission, including a plan of discovery protections provided by the Federal provided by the party’s attorney and Trade Commission Act, to protections considered by the expert in forming the 1 74 FR 20205 (2009). provided by ‘‘any other federal statute opinions to be expressed; or (3) 2 The final rule amendments are not subject to the or regulation’’ and ‘‘any federal court or identifies assumptions provided by the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 Commission precedent interpreting party’s attorney and relied on by the U.S.C. 601(2), 604(a). The rule revisions to part 3 are also not subject to the requirements of the such statute or regulation’’ rather than expert in forming the opinions to be Paperwork Reduction Act, which contains an referring to ‘‘any regulation, expressed. exemption for information collected during the interpretation, or precedent concerning In addition, the Commission is adding conduct of administrative proceedings or documents in the possession of the a new paragraph (f) to Section 3.31A investigations. 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(1)(B)(ii); 5 CFR 1320.4. To the extent that Rule 4.2 applies to filings Commission’’; that allows the Administrative Law that do not fall within this exception, the Office of (3) more clearly state in the second Judge, upon a finding of good cause, to Management and Budget has approved the paragraph that the Order’s alter the pre-hearing schedule for expert collection of information, along with other confidentiality protection extends to discovery set forth in Section 3.31A, but applications and notices to the Commission, and has assigned control number 3084–0047. The any information that ‘‘discloses the only if such an alteration would not revisions to Rule 4.2 do not substantially or substance of the contents of any affect the date of the evidentiary hearing materially modify this collection of information. confidential materials derived from a noticed in the complaint. This change

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52251

allows the Administrative Law Judge to Thus, the amendment allows for Section 3.52: Appeal From Initial extend the expert discovery time line if video recording of all witness testimony Decision needed, including where the parties only by direction of the Administrative The Commission is amending mutually seek such an alteration, but Law Judge upon a motion by a party. If language in Sections 3.52(a)(1), (a)(2) would not change the overall time line the Administrative Law Judge issues an and (b)(2) that provides a deadline for for the administrative adjudication order finding good cause to permit holding oral argument. In these itself. video recording of all witness paragraphs, the rule requires the testimony, the moving party shall bear Section 3.43: Evidence Commission to ‘‘schedule oral the costs for such recording. The rule argument’’ within a prescribed amount The Commission is changing Section contemplates that the reporter officially of days after the deadline for reply briefs 3.43(b) to specifically include expert designated by the Commission to or objections to the initial decision, reports as admissible hearsay evidence. transcribe the proceeding shall also depending on which paragraph applies. In addition, the Commission is adding provide the video recording services, in To clarify that these sentences require a new requirement to this paragraph order to minimize delay or disruption oral arguments to be held, and not regarding the admission of ‘‘prior and ensure reliability. Where the merely scheduled for some later date, testimony (including expert reports) moving party is not complaint counsel, within the prescribed amount of days, from other proceedings where either the the moving party shall independently the Commission is replacing ‘‘schedule’’ Commission or respondent did not contract with and reimburse the reporter with ‘‘hold’’ in these sentences. participate,’’ though this requirement directly for such additional recording In addition, the Commission is would not apply to ‘‘other proceedings services. The moving party may retain amending the beginning of these where the Commission and at least one some other person or entity to make the sentences, which had set aside the respondent did participate.’’ Such prior recordings, such as when the designated deadlines for oral argument where ‘‘the testimony could often be voluminous, reporter is unwilling or unable to Commission determines there shall be and in recent enforcement actions such perform these additional services, only no oral argument.’’ Because the evidence was admitted that resulted in where the Administrative Law Judge paragraph permits the Commission to the inclusion of excessive, unhelpful issues an order setting forth good cause ‘‘order’’ that no oral argument be held, materials in the record that burdened for such substitution and prescribing the sentence now uses ‘‘orders’’ in place the non-admitting party. As a result, for standards and procedures to ensure that of ‘‘determines’’ to make these sentences such material, unless the parties consent the video recording will serve as a more consistent with the previous to its admission, the Administrative complete and accurate record of the oral language. Law Judge must first make a finding testimony being recorded. The Commission’s contract with its reporter Section 3.83: Procedures for upon the motion of the party seeking the Considering Applications admission of such evidence that the sets forth rates for obtaining copies of prior testimony would not be video recordings from the reporter. The Commission is correcting the duplicative, would not present When the moving party is other than citation to the Equal Access to Justice unnecessary hardship to a party or delay complaint counsel, that party must Act in Section 3.83(i). That Section ensure that its contract with the reporter to the proceedings, and would aid in the provided that ‘‘[j]udicial review of final for video recording services requires determination of the matter. However, Commission decisions on awards may that copies of such recordings be made this requirement for ‘‘prior testimony be sought as provided in 5 U.S.C. available at no more than the maximum * * * from other proceedings’’ does not 503(c)(2).’’ The paragraph now correctly rates under the FTC’s own contract, include the Commission staff’s cites to 5 U.S.C. 504(c)(2). unless the Administrative Law Judge investigational hearings involving has authorized a person or entity other List of Subjects in 16 CFR Parts 3 respondent, which shall be admitted than the Commission’s reporter to make and 4 without being subject to this new the video recordings. In the case of such Administrative practice and limitation.3 an authorization by the Administrative procedure. Section 3.44: Record Law Judge, the maximum rates for For the reasons set forth in the copies shall be either the maximum preamble, the Federal Trade The Commission is amending the rates that the Commission’s reporter is Commission amends Title 16, Chapter 1, general requirement that ‘‘[t]he live oral authorized to charge for such copies Subchapter A of the Code of Federal testimony of each witness * * * be under its Commission contract or the Regulations, parts 3 and 4, as follows: video recorded digitally.’’ The actual cost of duplication, whichever is Commission had added this higher. PART 3—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR requirement in its 2009 amendments to ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS the Part 3 Rules ‘‘to enable the Section 3.45: In Camera Orders and Commission, which is tasked with Section 4.2: Requirements as to Form, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 3 reviewing the record de novo, to and Filing of Documents Other Than continues to read as follows: independently assess witness demeanor Correspondence Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise when necessary.’’ 4 However, recent The Commission is amending the noted. experience and cost estimates have language in Sections 3.45 and 4.2 that ■ 2. Amend § 3.31, by adding a new revealed that this video requirement is requires parties to identify the sentence at the end of paragraph (a) and expensive, and the Commission has confidential or public nature of a revising the introductory text of determined that the benefits of digital document filed with the Commission on paragraph (c) and paragraphs (c)(2)(i), video recordings to its assessment of the document’s first page. The new (c)(2)(iii), and the first two sentences of witness testimony do not outweigh language requires parties to provide this paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: these considerable costs. designation on every page of the document to avoid the inadvertent § 3.31 General discovery provisions. 3 See 16 CFR 2.8. release of individual pages of (a) * * * Unless all parties expressly 4 74 FR 1817. confidential documents. agree otherwise, no discovery shall take

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52252 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

place before the issuance of a prehearing is not reasonably believed to be already in ■ 5. Amend § 3.43 by removing the sixth scheduling order under § 3.21(c), except the public domain and that counsel believes sentence of paragraph (b) and adding, in for the mandatory initial disclosures the material so designated constitutes its place, two sentences, to read as required by paragraph (b) of this section. confidential material as defined in Paragraph follows: 1 of this Order. * * * * * 6. * * * Masked or otherwise redacted § 3.43 Evidence. (c) Scope of discovery. Unless copies of documents may be produced where otherwise limited by order of the * * * * * the portions masked or redacted contain (b) * * * If otherwise meeting the Administrative Law Judge or the privileged matter, provided that the copy standards for admissibility described in Commission in accordance with these produced shall indicate at the appropriate this paragraph, depositions, rules, the scope of discovery under all point that portions have been masked or investigational hearings, prior testimony the rules in this part is as follows: redacted and the reasons therefor. * * * * * in Commission or other proceedings, * * * * * expert reports, and any other form of ■ (2) * * * 4. Amend § 3.31A, by revising hearsay, shall be admissible and shall (i) The discovery sought from a party paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs (e) not be excluded solely on the ground or third party is unreasonably and (f) to read as follows: that they are or contain hearsay. cumulative or duplicative, or is § 3.31A Expert discovery. However, absent the consent of the obtainable from some other source that parties, before admitting prior testimony * * * * * is more convenient, less burdensome, or (including expert reports) from other (d) A party may depose any person less expensive; proceedings where either the who has been identified as an expert * * * * * Commission or respondent did not whose opinions may be presented at (iii) The burden and expense of the participate, except for other proceedings proposed discovery on a party or third trial. Unless otherwise ordered by the where the Commission and at least one party outweigh its likely benefit. Administrative Law Judge, a deposition respondent did participate, the (3) Electronically stored information. of any expert witness shall be Administrative Law Judge must make a A party or third party need not provide conducted after the disclosure of a finding upon the motion of a party discovery of electronically stored report prepared by the witness in seeking the admission of such evidence information from sources that the party accordance with paragraph (a) of this that the prior testimony would not be or third party identifies as not section. Depositions of expert witnesses duplicative, would not present reasonably accessible because of undue shall be completed not later than 65 unnecessary hardship to a party or delay burden or cost. On a motion to compel days after the close of fact discovery. to the proceedings, and would aid in the discovery, the party or third party from Upon motion, the Administrative Law determination of the matter. * * * Judge may order further discovery by whom discovery is sought must show * * * * * that the information is not reasonably other means, subject to such restrictions ■ 6. Amend § 3.44, by removing the last accessible because of undue burden or as to scope as the Administrative Law two sentences of paragraph (a) and cost. * * * Judge may deem appropriate. (e) A party may not discover facts adding, in their place, five sentences, to * * * * * read as follows: ■ 3. In Appendix A to § 3.31 revise the known or opinions held by an expert first sentence of paragraph 1, the first who has been retained or specifically § 3.44 Record. sentence of paragraph 2, paragraph 5, employed by another party in (a) * * * Upon a motion by any party, and the last sentence of paragraph 6 to anticipation of litigation or preparation for good cause shown the read as follows: for hearing and who is not listed as a Administrative Law Judge may order witness for the evidentiary hearing. A that the live oral testimony of all Appendix A to § 3.31: Standard party may not discover drafts of any witnesses be video recorded digitally, at Protective Order report required by this section, the expense of the moving party, and in * * * * * regardless of the form in which the draft such cases the video recording and the 1. As used in this Order, ‘‘confidential is recorded, or any communications written transcript of the testimony shall material’’ shall refer to any document or between another party’s attorney and be made part of the record. If a video portion thereof that contains privileged any of that other party’s testifying recording is so ordered, the moving information, competitively sensitive experts, regardless of the form of the party shall not pay or retain any person information, or sensitive personal communications, except to the extent or entity to perform such recording information. * * * that the communications: other than the reporter designated by 2. Any document or portion thereof (1) Relate to compensation for the submitted by a respondent or a third party the Commission to transcribe the during a Federal Trade Commission expert’s study or testimony; proceeding, except by order of the investigation or during the course of this (2) Identify facts or data that the other Administrative Law Judge upon a proceeding that is entitled to confidentiality party’s attorney provided and that the finding of good cause. In any order under the Federal Trade Commission Act, or expert considered in forming the allowing for video recording by a person any other federal statute or regulation, or opinions to be expressed; or or entity other than the Commission’s under any federal court or Commission (3) Identify assumptions that the other designated reporter, the Administrative precedent interpreting such statute or party’s attorney provided and that the Law Judge shall prescribe standards and regulation, as well as any information that expert relied on in forming the opinions procedures for the video recording to discloses the substance of the contents of any to be expressed. confidential materials derived from a ensure that it is a complete and accurate document subject to this Order, shall be (f) The Administrative Law Judge record of the witnesses’ testimony. treated as confidential material for purposes may, upon a finding of good cause, alter Copies of the written transcript and of this Order. * * * the pre-hearing schedule set forth in this video recording are available from the * * * * * section; provided, however, that no reporter at rates not to exceed the 5. A designation of confidentiality shall such alteration shall affect the date of maximum rates fixed by contract constitute a representation in good faith and the evidentiary hearing noticed in the between the Commission and the after careful determination that the material complaint. reporter. Copies of a video recording

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52253

made by a person or entity other than argument, it will hold oral argument Brian Holmes (Technical Information), the reporter shall be available at the within 15 days after the deadline for the Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy same rates, or no more than the actual filing of any reply briefs. * * * Regulatory Commission, 888 First cost of duplication, whichever is higher. * * * * * Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. * * * * * ■ 9. Amend § 3.83, by revising Telephone: (202) 502–6008, e-mail: ■ 7. Amend § 3.45, by revising the paragraph (i) to read as follows: [email protected]. second and seventh full sentences of Robert Sheldon (Technical Information), paragraph (e) and the second and third § 3.83 Procedures for considering Office of Energy Market Regulation, full sentences of paragraph (f) to read as applicants. Federal Energy Regulatory follows: * * * * * Commission, 888 First Street, NE., (i) Judicial review. Judicial review of Washington, DC 20426. Telephone: § 3.45 In camera orders. final Commission decisions on awards (202) 502–8672, e-mail: robert. * * * * * may be sought as provided in 5 U.S.C. [email protected]. (e) * * * A complete version shall be 504(c)(2). Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information), marked ‘‘In Camera’’ or ‘‘Subject to * * * * * Office of the General Counsel, Federal Protective Order,’’ as appropriate, on Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 every page and shall be filed with the PART 4—MISCELLANEOUS RULES First Street, NE., Washington, DC Secretary and served by the party on the 20426. Telephone: (202) 502–8321, e- other parties in accordance with the ■ 1. The authority for part 4 remains: mail: [email protected]. rules in this part. * * * An expurgated Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: version of the document, marked noted. Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, ‘‘Public Record’’ on every page and ■ 2. Amend § 4.2(b), by revising the last Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. omitting the in camera and confidential sentence, to read as follows: Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. information and attachment that appear LaFleur. in the complete version, shall be filed § 4.2 Requirements as to form, and filing with the Secretary within 5 days after of documents other than correspondence. Order on Rehearing the filing of the complete version, * * * * * Issued August 16, 2011 unless the Administrative Law Judge or (b) * * * Every page of each such 1. Earlier in this proceeding, the the Commission directs otherwise, and document shall be clearly and Commission issued a Final Rule (Order shall be served by the party on the other accurately labeled ‘‘Public’’, ‘‘In No. 710–B) revising its financial forms, parties in accordance with the rules in Camera’’ or ‘‘Confidential’’. statements, and reports for natural gas this part. * * * * * * * * companies, contained in FERC Form (f) * * * A complete version shall be Nos. 2, 2–A, and 3–Q, to provide greater marked ‘‘In Camera’’ or ‘‘Subject to By direction of the Commission. transparency on fuel data by requiring Protective Order,’’ as appropriate, on Donald S. Clark, the reporting of functionalized fuel data every page and shall be served upon the Secretary. on pages 521a through 521c of those parties. The complete version will be [FR Doc. 2011–21019 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] forms, and to include on those forms the placed in the in camera record of the BILLING CODE 6750–01–P amount of fuel waived, discounted or proceeding. An expurgated version, to reduced as part of a negotiated rate be filed within 5 days after the filing of 1 the complete version, shall omit the in agreement. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2. In response to the Final Rule, the camera and confidential information Interstate Natural Gas Association of that appears in the complete version, Federal Energy Regulatory America (INGAA) filed a request for shall be marked ‘‘Public Record’’ on Commission rehearing raising eleven separate every page, shall be served upon the objections to the Final Rule. In this parties, and shall be included in the 18 CFR Part 260 order on rehearing, we generally deny public record of the proceeding.*** [Docket No. RM07–9–004; Order No. 710– rehearing and reaffirm the findings we * * * * * C] made in Order No. 710–B. We do, ■ 8. Amend § 3.52, by revising the however, revise the burden estimate to fourth sentence of paragraph (a)(1), the Revisions to Forms, Statements, and more accurately account for initial start- first sentence of paragraph (a)(2), and Reporting Requirements for Natural up costs, grant rehearing on the issue of the fourth sentence of paragraph (b)(2) Gas Pipelines whether to include page 521d and we to read as follows: AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory grant filers additional time before they § 3.52 Appeal from initial decision. Commission, DOE. must begin filing Form Nos. 2, 2–A, and 3–Q in accordance with the (a) * * * ACTION: Order on Rehearing. (1) * * * Unless the Commission requirements established in Order No. orders that there shall be no oral SUMMARY: In this Order, the Federal 710–B and this rehearing order. Energy Regulatory Commission argument, it will hold oral argument I. Background within 10 days after the deadline for the (Commission) generally denies rehearing and reaffirms the findings 3. This matter began in 2008, when filing of any reply briefs. * * * the Commission issued a Final Rule (2) If no objections to the initial made in Order No. 710–B. The (Order No. 710) revising its financial decision are filed, the Commission may Commission does, however, revise the forms, statements, and reports for in its discretion hold oral argument burden estimate to more accurately natural gas companies, contained in within 10 days after the deadline for the account for initial start-up costs, grant filing of objection, * * * rehearing on the issue of whether to include page 521d, and grant additional 1 Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting (b) * * * Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. (2) * * * Unless the Commission time to comply with Order No. 710–B. 710–B, 76 FR 4516 (Jan. 26, 2011), 134 FERC orders that there shall be no oral FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ¶ 61,033 (2011) (Order No. 710–B or Final Rule).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52254 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

FERC Form Nos. 2, 2–A, and 3–Q, to fuel by individual contracts. Second, 8. INGAA states that, in Order No. make the information reported in these INGAA argues that adding this level of 710–B, the Commission found that the forms more useful by updating them to detail increases the reporting burden. reporting of functionalized fuel data by reflect current market and cost Third, INGAA argues that the contract rate category does not require information relevant to interstate Commission erred by not adopting its the tracking of fuel by individual natural gas pipelines and their alternative proposal which it maintains contracts. INGAA disputes this finding customers.2 The information provided would have met the Commission’s and argues that such tracking would be in these forms included data on fuel needs with a lesser burden to filers. necessitated, despite the Commission’s use, but did not require these data to be Fourth, INGAA claims that the finding to the contrary. We reject this functionally disaggregated. requirement to allocate lost and interpretation. As we stated in Order 4. On rehearing, the American Gas unaccounted for gas (LAUF) among No. 710–B, at paragraph 74: Association (AGA) argued that the fuel negotiated, discounted and recourse In this Final Rule, the Commission is not data would be more useful if such data transportation customers ignores imposing any additional reporting were broken out by different pipeline fundamental nature of LAUF, forcing an requirements that change how those functions, including transportation, allocation that is meaningless. Fifth, pipelines track fuel. Pipeline billings are storage, gathering, and exploration/ INGAA argues that the requirement to provided on an integrated basis, accounting for sales based on whether the volumes are production, and should include, by disclose the disposition of excess gas or function, the amount of fuel waived, negotiated, recourse, or discounted. gas acquired to meet deficiencies by Moreover, contrary to INGAA’s assertions, discounted or reduced as part of a contract rate category also is the Commission is not requiring pipelines to negotiated rate agreement. This meaningless. Sixth, INGAA reiterates its track fuel by individual contracts, but merely argument was rejected in Order No. objection to reporting discounted rates continuing the current practice of requiring 710–A,3 but was reconsidered in a as a separate category, claiming that the assignment of fuel based on an allocation Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued disclosing this information does not of throughput or stated fuel rate. The 4 revisions to page 521a through 521c require on June 17, 2010. AGA supported the serve any regulatory purpose because Commission’s proposal while INGAA the same accounting mechanism for fuel, pipelines are prohibited from enabling parties to better understand how opposed it. After considering all the discounting. Seventh, INGAA argues fuel use costs are assigned. comments and reply comments, the that the Commission erred by not Commission issued a Final Rule adding 9. Thus, it can be seen that, if a granting the clarification requested by pipeline has twelve gas service additional transparency to the reporting 6 MidAmerican (that the rule should contracts, the Final Rule is not requiring of fuel data. Specifically, the Final Rule only cover (1) contracts with discounted revised FERC Form Nos. 2, 2–A, and 3– the pipeline to report the details of each and negotiated fuel rates and (2) of those contracts. Instead, the Final Q, revising pages 521a, 521b, and page headings should be changed to be 520, and adding page 521c to FERC Rule is requiring the pipeline to report ‘‘discounted fuel rate’’ and ‘‘negotiated the totals for fuel (for all twelve Form Nos. 2, 2–A, and 3–Q to include fuel rate’’). INGAA argues this would be functionalized fuel data, including the contracts) by function which can be less burdensome but would accomplish determined on an allocation of amount of fuel waived, discounted or the Commission’s stated goals. Eighth, reduced as part of a negotiated rate throughput or stated fuel rate. To 5 INGAA argues that the Commission accomplish this, however, the pipelines agreement. erred by assuming that MidAmerican’s 5. In response to the Final Rule, would need to continue their current proposal would have excluded many INGAA filed a request for rehearing practice of assessing shippers for contracts that otherwise would be reiterating many of the concerns that it services provided to each customer. reported. Ninth, INGAA argues that the raised earlier in the proceeding (in its C. Reporting Burden comments and reply comments on the Final Rule orders the collection of data June 2010 NOPR). too soon and that data under the new 10. INGAA argues that adding the categories should not be required to be level of detail required by the Final Rule II. Discussion collected until calendar year 2012. increases the reporting burden. In light A. Overview Tenth, INGAA requests clarification that of INGAA’s concerns, we have further ‘‘backhaul service offered under tariff’’ reviewed the burden estimate contained 6. INGAA raises eleven separate means that, if tariff does not include a in the Final Rule and have determined objections to the Final Rule. First, ‘‘backhaul’’ rate schedule, then nothing that we can improve the accuracy of our INGAA argues that Order No. 710–B need be reported for this. Finally, burden estimate if we distinguish erred by finding that reporting of INGAA argues that the Commission between the initial start-up costs, which functionalized fuel data by contract rate should keep blank page 521d, which include all of the work needed to category does not require tracking of was included in the June 2010 NOPR identify and create a mechanism to and omitted in the Final Rule. We will report the information required to be 2 Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting now examine each of these arguments. reported under the Final Rule, as Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines, final rule, Order No. 710, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,267 (2008) compared to the ongoing costs of B. Does the Final Rule Require the reporting the information required to be (Order No. 710). Tracking of Individual Contracts? 3 Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting reported under the Final Rule once the Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines, order on reporting mechanism is in place. This reh’g and clarification, Order No. 710–A, 123 FERC 7. INGAA argues that Order No. 710– ¶ 61,278 (2008). B erred by finding that reporting of revised burden estimate is shown below 4 Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting functionalized fuel data by contract rate in the Information Collection Statement Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines, Notice of category does not require the tracking of that begins at paragraph 28 of this order. Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 35700 (June 23, 2010), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,659 (June 17, 2010) (June fuel by individual contracts. D. INGAA’s Alternative Proposal 2010 NOPR). 11. INGAA argues that the 5 Order No. 710–B, 134 FERC ¶ 61,033, at P 1, 7, 6 In this proceeding, we are referring to Northern 37. The Final Rule has a more complete discussion Natural Gas Company and Kern River Gas Commission erred by not adopting its of the procedural history of this case. We will not Transmission Company, collectively, as alternative proposal which it maintains reiterate that complete history here. MidAmerican. would have met the Commission’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52255

needs with a lesser burden to filers. The 14. The reporting requirements The allocation of costs is a standard Commission addressed this issue in established in the Final Rule do not practice for pipeline companies to bill Order No. 710–B, where we stated: require fuel use to be traced back to their customers for services rendered. 11 We find that requiring the reporting of fuel individual shipper contracts. The The fact that such allocations are not costs and revenues by rate structure broken information reported on pages 521a and 100 percent precise does not negate the down by function will increase the ability of 521b—even before issuance of the Final necessity for such allocations being the Commission and interested parties to Rule—already included a requirement made. Pipelines collect fuel (including assess whether a pipeline’s existing shippers for pipelines to report monthly fuel use LAUF) from customers and the Final are subsidizing the pipeline’s negotiated rate by Dth. The Final Rule added the Rule requires the reporting of how that program. Thus, we find that INGAA’s requirement for pipelines (on lines 1–65 fuel is assigned. proposal would effectively delete much of the valuable information sought in the June on pages 521a and 521b) to allocate 16. INGAA’s position is that the 2010 NOPR.7 these totals among discounted rates, allocation of fuel costs required by this The revised forms also will now allow the negotiated rates, and recourse rates. The rule is ‘‘meaningless’’ given the nature user to better determine where on the Final Rule did not impose a requirement of LAUF as gas that is lost and pipeline system fuel costs are being incurred that these allocations be made based on unaccounted for.12 We disagree. In our and how they are being allocated. This added a review of individual contracts. One view, allowing customers to see exactly transparency, which is supported by the reasonable approach would be to take how fuel costs are assigned to various majority of the commenters, will ensure that the total volume of throughput and customers groups is important because the Commission and pipeline customers have allocate it among the three contract sufficient information to be able to assess the it allows customers to assure themselves justness and reasonableness of pipeline rates. categories (i.e., contracts with that the fuel costs being assigned to The collection and public availability of this discounted rates, contracts with them are reasonable and do not cross- information is consistent with our goal of negotiated rates, and contracts with subsidize other customer groups. Thus, having sufficient information to allow the recourse rates) based on the percentage we find that making such allocations Commission and pipeline customers to assess of gas transported for each contract type, transparent is extremely meaningful. the impact on pipeline rates of changing fuel which is already known and available to costs.8 a pipeline for invoicing shippers on a F. Disclosure of Disposition of Excess By contrast, if we adopted INGAA’s monthly basis. For example, if, Gas or Gas Acquired To Meet Deficiency suggestion to limit the revisions to FERC hypothetically, a pipeline has a monthly by Contract Rate Category Form No. 2 to those originally proposed by AGA, then the benefits of increased transportation volume of 1000 Dth and 17. INGAA raises the same objections transparency of rates, particularly within the 5 percent of its volume is associated to the reporting of the disposition of negotiated rate program, which are described with contracts with discounted rates, excess gas or the reporting of gas in the two preceding paragraphs, would not 10 percent is associated with negotiated acquired to meet deficiencies that it be fully realized.9 rates contracts, and 85 percent raised regarding the reporting of the 12. INGAA’s rehearing reiterates associated with recourse rate contracts, allocation of fuel used in compressor arguments it advanced earlier in this then the pipeline could develop an stations, LAUF, and fuel used in proceeding that, for the reasons quoted allocation of fuel used at compressor operations. Specifically, INGAA argues above, the Commission rejected in stations, LAUF, and gas used in that, Order No. 710–B. We reaffirm those operations based on a ratio of the [t]he reporting of disposition of excess gas findings and reject INGAA’s proposal. throughput. Such an allocation could be or the reporting of gas acquired to meet used for all the various allocations deficiencies on pages 521b and 521c (lines E. Allocations of Fuel Used in needed to complete pages 521a and 38–65) by contract rate category would Compressor Stations, LAUF, and Fuel 521b. Thus, it is evident that we are not provide little benefit. A pipeline does not Used in Operations requiring pipelines to assess individual track disposition or acquisition of gas by 13. INGAA argues that Order No. 710– contracts to make this allocation. categories of transportation contracts. Assignment to contract rate categories could B suggests that fuel consumed in 15. In addition, while admittedly imperfect, allocating costs by function is be accomplished by utilizing an arbitrary compressor stations, LAUF and fuel allocation methodology. However, the used in operations, which are all drawn a standard practice for pipelines for numerous cost categories. The allocation of a pipeline’s system gas from a commingled and fungible gas dispositions or acquisitions would not yield stream, can be traced back to individual allocation of fuel consumed in any meaningful information. Only the shipper contracts. INGAA further argues compressor stations, LAUF and fuel reporting of total dispositions or total that the requirement to allocate LAUF used in operations, and among acquisitions of system gas would produce a among negotiated, discounted and negotiated, discounted and recourse cogent result. Accordingly, INGAA requests recourse transportation customers transportation customers are a few, rehearing and asks the Commission to allow among many, of such cost allocations. pipelines to report total disposition or total ignores fundamental nature of LAUF, acquisitions of system gas on pages 521b and forcing an allocation that is 521c.13 meaningless. INGAA also argues that, allocate or track fuel used by individual contract even in general section 4 rate proceedings. In its 18. As discussed above in paragraph except in some limited and unique orders approving pipelines’ negotiated rate circumstances, such tracing is contracts, the Commission requires pipelines to 14, the allocations required by the Final impractical, if not impossible.10 separately account for the negotiated rate Rule do not require an analysis of transaction’s volumes, revenues, billing individual contracts. Moreover, while determinants, rate components and surcharges. But, 7 the allocations required by this rule may Order No. 710–B, 134 FERC ¶ 61,033 at P 37. the Commission does not require that fuel used, or 8 Id. P 38. any other cost for that matter, associated with not be precise, few allocations are, and 9 Id. P 39. negotiated rate transactions be separately accounted these allocations are routinely made for 10 INGAA states that ‘‘[p]ipelines do track or for.’’ INGAA Rehearing at n.1. As discussed further customer billing purposes. allocate fuel consumed separately for incremental in paragraph 21 below, this contention is incorrect 19. The information reported in lines rate services in which the Commission in its orders because fuel use is a rate component. 38–65 would be useful in determining has required the pipeline to keep the incremental 11 The Commission does not expect pipelines to rate customers’ fuel costs and revenues separate. develop and administer a process by which the fuel Other than for such very limited incremental rate in each compressor, as it is burned, is assigned in 12 INGAA Rehearing at 3 & 8–9. purposes, however, pipelines are not required to some manner among individual shipper contracts. 13 INGAA Rehearing at 8.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52256 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

among which classes of shippers over approach provides an affirmative I. Excluded Contracts and under recoveries of fuel are confirmation that fuel is not being 24. INGAA argues that the occurring (i.e., recourse, negotiated, or discounted. Combining the discount Commission erred by assuming that discounted customers). For example, rate category with negotiated rates MidAmerican’s proposal would have recourse rate shippers could provide would eliminate this confirmation. excluded many contracts that otherwise more fuel than necessary and negotiated Consequently, we will retain the would be reported. As we stated in rate shippers could have a capped fuel separate discount rate category. Order No. 710–B, MidAmerican rate such that recourse shippers may be commented that, to its knowledge, very subsidizing negotiated rate shippers. 21. Additionally, based on its few discounted and negotiated rate The recourse rate shippers should be in contention that there is no cross-subsidy agreements include a provision for a position to fully understand whether in instances where a negotiated rate discounted and negotiated fuel.18 We over recovered fuel for recourse rate customer pays the same fuel rate as a concluded that, if this were true or if contracts is being used to make up a recourse rate customer, INGAA argues future contracts are written to make it deficiency of fuel for negotiated rate that there is no need to separate the true, then excluding the reporting of contracts. Similarly, shippers should be reporting of recourse and negotiated rate contracts not including a specific aware to the extent a pipeline is contracts. The Commission has long required pipelines to separately account provision identifying discounted and purchasing gas associated with a fuel 19 deficiency attributable to negotiated rate for rate components associated with negotiated fuel would be problematic. contracts. Additionally, while generally negotiated rates.15 We are not persuaded INGAA argues that we erred in relying more applicable to pipelines with stated to modify that policy in this rule. on MidAmerican’s statement, but in no fuel rates, shippers should be in a Moreover, while INGAA points to way rebuts it. Moreover, we were position to know whether the certain circumstances where it argues concerned that, even if contracts are not disposition of excess fuel is being sold that no cross-subsidy would occur, the currently drafted in this fashion, future or if the gas is used for imbalances such reporting requirements of this rule contracts could be rewritten to achieve this end and we do not wish to open that pipelines are recovering the cost apply to all negotiated rate contracts this possibility. Accordingly, we deny through periodic imbalance cashout and thus INGAA’s example does not INGAA’s request for rehearing on this reports. We find that reporting this suffice to contradict the need for this issue. information provides useful provision. transparency regarding the amount of J. Start Date for New Data Collections fuel used to operate compressor H. MidAmerican’s Requested stations, the disposition of excess gas Clarification 25. INGAA argues that the Final Rule and how the deficiency was acquired, orders the collection of data to begin too and how fuel costs and LAUF are 22. INGAA argues that the soon and that data under the new allocated among customers. Commission erred by not granting the categories should not be required to be Consequently, we deny rehearing of this clarification requested by MidAmerican collected until calendar year 2012. We issue. (that the rule should only cover (1) agree with INGAA that pipelines may Contracts with discounted and not have the accounting systems in G. Discounted Rates as a Separate negotiated fuel rates and (2) headings place to make the allocations of Category and Negotiated Rates as a should be changed to be ‘‘discounted functionalized fuel by contract rate type Separate Category fuel rate’’ and ‘‘negotiated fuel rate’’). required by the Final Rule and they may 20. INGAA reiterates its objection to INGAA argues this approach would be need to develop systems for making reporting fuel assigned to discounted less burdensome but would accomplish such allocations. We recognize some rates as a separate category, claiming the Commission’s stated goals. pipelines may not currently have in place the required accounting systems that disclosing this information does not 23. As we stated in Order No. 710– necessary to allocate fuel costs to serve any regulatory purpose, because B,16 the proposal to limit the scope of negotiated, discounted and recourse pipelines are prohibited from the rule to only require the reporting of transportation customers. In light of discounting fuel. Fuel expenses fuel costs in contracts that include a constitute a significant portion of the these considerations, we will grant specific provision for discounted or total expenses recovered by natural gas rehearing and further delay the negotiated fuel would elevate form over rates. Obscuring this information makes commencement of implementation of substance and would omit contracts it harder for entities to track the the filing requirements of the Final Rule reasonableness of these expenses. with negotiated and discounted rates, until the fourth quarter period (‘‘Q4’’) of Contrary to INGAA’s arguments, unless they include a specific provision 2011. Thus, the data must be reported pipelines are not prohibited from covering discounted or negotiated fuel. in the new format starting with the discounting fuel under all This is contrary to the objective of the quarterly period October 1 through circumstances.14 In addition, the Final Rule of enhancing the December 31, 2011 in Annual Report additional transparency provided by transparency of fuel costs and we deny Forms 2 and 2–A with a due date of this Final Rule serves the important rehearing. Also, given our finding on the April 18, 2012. This should allow regulatory objective of assuring that required reporting of gas contracts with sufficient time for filers to develop the rates are just and reasonable. If a discounted or negotiated fuel, we affirm necessary data and perform the needed pipeline is not discounting fuel then it our finding on the appropriate headings allocations. Individual pipeline should simply report zero in Column to be used.17 companies may apply to the (K), Volume (in Dth) Not Collected. This Commission for further extensions, 15 See, e.g., NorAm Gas Transmission Company, based on their individual 14 For example, in Transwestern Pipeline 75 FERC ¶ 61,322, at 62,029 (1996); Texas Eastern circumstances. Even if an extension is Transmission, LP, 133 FERC ¶ 61,220, at P 19 Company, 54 FERC ¶ 61,319, at 62,007 (1991), the granted, the information will still be Commission approved Transwestern’s proposal to (2010); Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC, 123 provide fuel discounts, provided that the minimum FERC ¶ 61,100, at P 87 (2008). rate would not be lower than actual fuel costs, if 16 Order No. 710–B, 134 FERC ¶ 61,033 at P 55. 18 Id. P 53. any. 17 Id. P 56. 19 Id. P 55.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52257

required to be reported for the Q4 instances, such as with reticulated gas 29. This order affects the following period of 2011 but, if an extension is systems, where it is not possible to existing data collections: granted, the due date for the filing of clearly determine what is a backhaul Title: FERC Form No. 2, ‘‘Annual this information may be extended past and what is a forwardhaul. We did not Report for Major Natural Gas the April 18, 2012 filing deadline. intend this to restrict the reporting of Companies’’; FERC Form No. 2–A, Pipeline companies seeking an backhauls in systems where the gas flow ‘‘Annual Report for Nonmajor Natural extension must provide a detailed path can be determined. Put differently, Gas Companies. explanation of why (for example, an if the pipeline is unable to determine Action: Proposed information additional analysis of data is needed, or whether the volume is forwardhaul or collection. allocation factors are still being backhaul, then the volume can be OMB Control Nos. 1902–0028 (FERC developed) they cannot meet the filing reported entirely as forwardhaul. Form No. 2); 1902–0030 (FERC Form deadline. The Commission will evaluate Accordingly, we affirm the findings we No. 2–A). these requests on a case-by-case basis, made on this subject at paragraphs 50– Respondents: Businesses or other for based on the facts presented. 52 of Order No. 710–B and deny the profit. requested clarification. Frequency of responses: Annually K. Requested Clarification of Reported (FERC Form Nos. 2 and 2–A). Backhaul Service L. Need for Page 521d Necessity of the information: The 26. INGAA requests clarification that 27. Finally, INGAA argues that the information maintained and collected ‘‘backhaul service offered under tariff’’ Commission should retain the blank under the requirements of 18 CFR 260.1 means that, if the tariff does not include page 521d that we proposed in the June and 18 CFR 260.2 is essential to the a ‘‘backhaul’’ rate schedule, then 2010 NOPR but omitted in Order No. Commission’s oversight duties. The data nothing need be reported for this.20 A 710–B. This omission was an oversight previously reported in the forms did not review of gas tariffs shows that many and we agree with INGAA that a filer provide sufficient information to the tariffs recover a charge for backhaul would need this page to properly Commission and the public to permit an service, but do not necessarily provide complete the Forms. Thus, we will evaluation of the filers’ jurisdictional for a separate backhaul rate schedule for correct this oversight and will include rates. Since the triennial restatement of that service. In many instances, the page 521d on the various forms.22 We, rates requirement was abolished and forwardhaul tariff permits backhaul likewise, are including pages 521a–d in pipelines are no longer required to service at or below the forwardhaul rate, the FERC Form Nos. 2/2–A/3–Q submit this information, the need for with no separate backhaul rate Submission Software System. current and relevant data is greater than schedule.21 If we exclude these III. Information Collection Statement in the past. backhaul volumes, then total backhaul 30. Without the information required volumes would be understated for these 28. The Office of Management and in Order No. 710–B, it is difficult for the transactions. Thus, we reject the Budget’s (OMB) regulations require Commission and the public to perform argument that information on backhauls approval of certain information an assessment of pipeline costs, and should be limited to those instances collection requirements imposed by thereby help to ensure that rates are just when the tariff includes a separate agency rules.23 Previously, the and reasonable. Order No. 710–B backhaul rate schedule. INGAA’s Commission submitted to OMB the accounts for the possibility that requested clarification would keep information collection requirements multiple pipelines may be required to needed information hidden and could arising from Order No. 710–B and OMB develop and implement new procedures encourage tariffs to be drafted in a approved those requirements.24 In this in order to provide the data in the manner to avoid the reporting of this order, the Commission is making no revised forms. In any event, we believe information. We note that the substantive changes to the content of the the additional information required in discussion in Order No. 710–B at forms and the information that is Order No. 710–B will allow the paragraph 52 was addressing the narrow required to be submitted. However, by Commission and form users to better adding in blank page 521d and re- analyze pipeline fuel costs, an 20 In Order No. 710–B, the Commission added estimating the reporting burden arising important component in assessing the lines 66–68 to page 521. The lines request a from Order No. 710–B, the Commission separation of forwardhaul and backhaul throughput justness and reasonableness of volumes in Dths for the quarter. finds it necessary to make a formal pipelines’ rates. 21 See Trailblazer Pipeline Co., 39 FERC ¶ 61,103, submission to OMB for review and Burden Statement: As indicated in the at 61,324 (1987), where we stated that, as backhaul approval under section 3507(d) of the above discussion, INGAA contends that volumes are included within the definition of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.25 the Commission underestimated the transportation in section 284.1(a) of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR 284.1(a)), burden associated with implementing 22 Trailblazer may perform backhaul service pursuant This page is shown as an attachment to this the changes mandated in Order No. to its firm and interruptible rate schedules and we order. 710–B. In light of INGAA’s arguments, 23 5 CFR 1320.11. did not require Trailblazer to adopt a separate the Commission acknowledges that backhaul rate in that proceeding. We also note that, 24 OMB approved the information collections for example, the Iroquois Gas Transmission System, prescribed in Order No. 710–B on May 16, 2011 for some filers may have to modify existing L.P., FERC Gas Tariff, at Section 13 of the General FERC Form No. 2 (OMB Control No. 1902–0028, systems in order to collect the necessary Terms and Conditions, Second Revised Sheet No. ICR# 201101–1902–001), FERC Form No. 2–A data. To account for this, the 76, provides for backhaul transportation service to (OMB Control No. 1902–0030, ICR# 201101–1902– Commission estimates a one-time be provided pursuant to the firm transportation 003) and FERC Form No. 3–Q (OMB Control No. service rate schedule and not under a separate 1902–0205, ICR# 201101–1902–004). burden of 80 hours per filer. This will backhaul rate schedule. 25 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). increase the burden as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52258 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

One-time filing One-time 26 Number of Filings per additional Data collection form respondents per year hours for respondent this form

FERC Form No. 2 ...... 84 80 1 6,720 FERC Form No. 2–A ...... 44 80 1 3,520

Totals ...... 10,240

Information Collection Costs: 10,240 associated burden estimates, please define ‘‘significant’’ or ‘‘substantial.’’ hours at $120/hour= $1,228,800. submit comments to FERC in this Instead, the RFA leaves it up to an 31. Internal Review: The Commission Docket No. and to the Office of agency to determine the effect of its has reviewed the proposed changes and Information and Regulatory Affairs, regulations on small entities. has determined that the changes are Office of Management and Budget, 725 34. In Order No. 710–B the necessary. These requirements conform 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 Commission certified that the additional to the Commission’s need for efficient [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal reporting requirements would not have information collection, communication, Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: a significant economic impact on a and management within the energy (202) 395–4638, fax: (202) 395–7285]. substantial number of small entities.29 industry. The Commission has assured Due to security concerns, comments With the understanding that a one-time itself, by means of internal review, that should be sent electronically to the burden has now been added, the following e-mail address: Commission affirms that the there is specific, objective support _ associated with the information oira [email protected]. Please certification provided in Order No. 710– requirements. refer to OMB Control Nos. 1902–0028 B remains accurate and no further (FERC Form No. 2), and 1902–0030 justification is needed under the RFA. 32. Interested persons may obtain (FERC Form No. 2–A), and the docket The Commission orders: information on the reporting number of this Final Rule in your (A) INGAA’s request for rehearing is requirements by contacting: Federal submission. hereby denied in part and granted in Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 part, as discussed in the body of this First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act order. [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the 33. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of (B) This order shall be published in Executive Director, e-mail: 1980 (RFA)27 generally requires a the Federal Register. [email protected], phone (202) description and analysis of final rules 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. For that will have significant economic By the Commission. submitting comments concerning the impact on a substantial number of small Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., collections of information and the entities.28 However, the RFA does not Deputy Secretary.

26 The FERC Form No. 3–Q (OMB Control No. intends to submit the FERC Form No. 3–Q to OMB 15 U.S.C. 632. The Small Business Size Standards 1902–0205) is not directly affected by the one-time for informational purposes. component of the North American Industry burden increase because the filers will be making 27 5 U.S.C. 601–612. Classification System defines a small natural gas this one-time change in preparation for filing the 28 The RFA definition of ‘‘small entity’’ refers to pipeline company as one whose total annual FERC Form Nos. 2 and 2A in April 2012. It is the definition provided in the Small Business Act, revenues, including its affiliates, are $6.5 million or expected that well before the date of the next FERC which defines a ‘‘small business concern’’ as a less. 13 CFR parts 121, 201. Form No. 3Q filing the one-time burden will have business that is independently owned and operated 29 Order No. 710–B, 134 FERC ¶ 61,033 at P 89– already been expended. However, the Commission and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 91.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52259

[FR Doc. 2011–21353 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ACTION: Final regulations and removal of BILLING CODE 6717–01–P temporary regulations. Internal Revenue Service SUMMARY: This document contains final 26 CFR Part 301 regulations regarding the suspension of interest, penalties, additions to tax, or [TD 9545] additional amounts under section 6404(g) of the Internal Revenue Code. RIN 1545–BG75 The final regulations explain the general rules for suspension and exceptions to Interest and Penalty Suspension those general rules, and incorporate a Provisions Under Section 6404(g) of special rule from Notice 2007–93, 2007– the Internal Revenue Code 48 IRB 1072, regarding the effective date of the changes to section 6404(g) made AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by the Small Business and Work Treasury. Opportunity Tax Act of 2007. The final

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES ER22AU11.054 52260 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

regulations affect taxpayers who file decision. The revisions are discussed in period. The suspension would end 21 timely individual income tax returns this preamble. days after the date on which the notice and who fail to receive notification from On June 21, 2007, the Treasury was provided. the IRS of additional tax liability within Department and the IRS also published 2. In all other cases, the suspension the time period prescribed by section a separate set of temporary regulations would begin on the day after the close 6404(g). (TD 9333), 2007–33 IRB 350 (72 FR of the 36-month notification period 34176), corrected at 72 FR 41022, and a DATES: Effective Date: These regulations described in section 6404(g)(1)(A) and notice of proposed rulemaking by cross- are effective on August 22, 2011. end 21 days after the date on which the Applicability date: Section 301.6404– reference to temporary regulations notice was provided. 4(a)(5) applies to notices under section (REG–149036–04), 2007–33 IRB 365 (72 The final regulations incorporate 6404(g)(1)(A) that are provided by the FR 34204), corrected at 72 FR 41045, substantially without change the special IRS on or after November 26, 2007, and under section 6404(g) concerning the rule of Notice 2007–93 at § 301.6404– that relate to individual Federal income suspension of interest, penalties, 4(a)(5). tax returns that were timely filed before additions to tax, or additional amounts In addition, § 301.6404–4(b)(2) was with respect to listed transactions or that date. revised to remove the reference to undisclosed reportable transactions. section 6501(c)(1) and the meaning of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Those temporary and proposed fraud, as fraud is not defined in section Nathan Rosen, (202) 622–3630 (not a regulations are not the subject of this 6501(c)(1) but is instead generally toll-free number). Treasury decision, and were published described under case law and other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: as final regulations on June 16, 2010 (TD guidance. Thus, fraud for purposes of Background 9488), 2010–28 IRB 51 (75 FR 33992). § 301.6404–4(b)(2) has the same This document amends the Procedure Explanation of Revisions meaning as that provided in case law and other guidance. and Administration Regulations (26 CFR The final regulations include new part 301) by adding rules relating to the Finally, minor editorial changes were § 301.6404–4(a)(5) to address the made to clarify the terms of section suspension of interest, penalties, matters that were the subject of Notice additions to tax, or additional amounts 6404(g) and to modify a reference to 2007–93. In general, section 6404(g) official IRS forms. under section 6404(g). Section 6404(g) provides that if an individual taxpayer was added to the Code by section 3305 files a Federal income tax return on or Effect on Other Documents of the Internal Revenue Service before the due date for that return The following publication is obsolete Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, (including extensions), and if the IRS as of August 22, 2011: Public Law 105–206 (112 Stat. 685, 743) does not timely provide a notice to that Notice 2007–93 (2007–48 IRB 1072). (RRA 98), effective for taxable years taxpayer specifically stating the ending after July 22, 1998. Section taxpayer’s liability and the basis for that Special Analyses 6404(g) was amended by section 903(c) liability, then the IRS must suspend any It has been determined that this of the American Jobs Creation Act of interest, penalty, addition to tax, or Treasury decision is not a significant 2004, Public Law 108–357 (118 Stat. additional amount with respect to any regulatory action as defined in 1418, 1652) (AJCA), enacted on October failure relating to the return that is Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a 22, 2004, and by section 303 of the Gulf computed by reference to the period of regulatory assessment is not required. It Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, Public time the failure continues and that is has also been determined that section Law 109–135 (119 Stat. 2577, 2608–09) properly allocable to the suspension 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure (GOZA), enacted on December 21, 2005. period. A notice is timely if provided Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply Section 8242 of the Small Business and before the close of the 18-month period to these regulations, and because these Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007, (36-month period, in the case of notices regulations do not impose a collection Public Law 110–28 (121 Stat. 190, 200), provided after November 25, 2007, of information on small entities, the extended the eighteen-month period subject to the provisions of § 301.6404– Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. within which the IRS can, without 4(a)(5)) beginning on the later of the chapter 6) does not apply. suspension of interest, contact a date on which the return is filed or the Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the taxpayer regarding possible adjustments due date of the return without regard to Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking to the taxpayer’s liability to thirty-six extensions. The suspension period preceding these regulations was months, effective for notices provided begins on the day after the close of the submitted to the Chief Counsel for after November 25, 2007. 18-month period (or 36-month period) Advocacy of the Small Business On June 21, 2007, the Treasury and ends 21 days after the IRS provides Administration for comment on its Department and the IRS published in the notice. This suspension rule applies impact on small business. the Federal Register a notice of separately with respect to each item or proposed rulemaking and notice of adjustment. Drafting Information public hearing (REG–149036–04), 2007– Notice 2007–93 set forth a special rule The principal author of these 34 IRB 411 (72 FR 34199), corrected at for notices under section 6404(g)(1) that regulations is Nathan Rosen of the (72 FR 41045) (July 26, 2007), under (i) are provided by the IRS on or after Office of Associate Chief Counsel section 6404(g). The proposed November 26, 2007, and (ii) relate to (Procedure and Administration). regulations provided guidance regarding individual Federal income tax returns the suspension of interest, penalties, that were timely filed before that date. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 additions to tax, or additional amounts Under the special rule: Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting under section 6404(g). No comments 1. If, as of November 25, 2007, the 18- and recordkeeping requirements. were received in response to the notice month notification deadline had passed of proposed rulemaking and no public and the IRS had not provided notice to Adoption of Amendments to the hearing was requested or held. the taxpayer, the suspension described Regulations Therefore, the proposed regulations are in section 6404(g)(1)(A) would begin on Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is adopted as amended by this Treasury the day after the close of the 18-month amended as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52261

PART 301—PROCEDURE AND (1) Tentative carryback and refund (ii) Amended returns that show a ADMINISTRATION adjustments. decrease in tax liability. If a taxpayer (2) Election under section 183(e). provides to the IRS an amended return ■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation (i) In general. or other signed written document that for part 301 continues to read in part as (ii) Example. shows a decrease in tax liability, any follows: (d) Effective/applicability date. interest, penalty, addition to tax, or Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * § 301.6404–0T [Removed] additional amount will not be suspended if the IRS at any time ■ Par. 2. Section 301.6404–0 is ■ Par. 3. Section 301.6404–0T is proposes to adjust the changed item or amended as follows: removed. items on the amended return or other ■ 1. Revise the introductory text. ■ Par. 4. Section 301.6404–4 is signed written document. amended as follows: (iii) Amended returns and other ■ 2. Revise entries for § 301.6404–4(a) documents as notice.—(A) As to the and (b)(1) through (b)(4). ■ 1. Add paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) items reported, an amended return or through (b)(4). one or more other signed written ■ 3. Revise entries for § 301.6404–4(c) ■ 2. Add paragraph (c). documents showing that the taxpayer and (d). owes an additional amount of tax for the The revisions read as follows: ■ 3. Paragraph (d) is amended by adding taxable year serves as the notice § 301.6404–0 Table of contents. a second sentence. described in paragraph (a)(1) of this The additions and revisions read as This section lists the paragraphs section with respect to the items follows: contained in §§ 301.6404–1 through reported on the amended return. 301.6404–4. § 301.6404–4 Suspension of interest and (B) Example. An individual taxpayer * * * * * certain penalties when the Internal Revenue timely files a Federal income tax return for Service does not timely contact the taxable year 2008 on April 15, 2009. On § 301.6404–4 Suspension of interest and taxpayer. January 19, 2010, the taxpayer mails to the certain penalties when the Internal Revenue IRS an amended return reporting an (a) Suspension.—(1) In general. additional item of income and an increased Service does not timely contact the Except as provided in paragraph (b) of taxpayer. tax liability for taxable year 2008. The IRS this section, if an individual taxpayer receives the amended return on January 21, (a) Suspension. files a return of tax imposed by subtitle 2010. The amended return will be treated for (1) In general. A on or before the due date for the purposes of this paragraph (a) as filed on (2) Treatment of amended returns and return (including extensions) and the January 21, 2010, the date the IRS received other documents. Internal Revenue Service does not it. Pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this (i) Amended returns filed on or after timely provide the taxpayer with a section, the amended return serves as the December 21, 2005, that show an notice specifically stating the amount of notice described in paragraph (a)(1) of this increase in tax liability. section with respect to the item reported on any increased liability and the basis for the amended return. Accordingly, because (ii) Amended returns that show a that liability, then the IRS must suspend decrease in tax liability. the filing of the amended return and the the imposition of any interest, penalty, provision of notice occur simultaneously, no (iii) Amended returns and other addition to tax, or additional amount, suspension of any interest, penalty, addition documents as notice. with respect to any failure relating to to tax or additional amount will occur under (iv) Joint return after filing separate the return that is computed by reference this paragraph (a) with respect to the item return. to the period of time the failure reported on the amended return. (3) Separate application. continues to exist and that is properly (iv) Joint return after filing separate (4) Duration of suspension period. allocable to the suspension period. The return. A joint return filed under section (5) Certain notices provided on or notice described in this paragraph (a) is 6013(b) is subject to the rules for after November 26, 2007. timely if provided before the close of the amended returns described in this (i) Eighteen-month period has closed. 18-month period (36-month period in paragraph (a)(2). The IRS will not (ii) All other cases. the case of notices provided after suspend any interest, penalty, addition (6) Examples. November 25, 2007, subject to the to tax, or additional amount on a joint (7) Notice of liability and the basis for provisions of paragraph (a)(5)) return filed under section 6013(b) after the liability. beginning on the later of the date on the filing of a separate return unless (i) In general. which the return is filed or the due date each spouse’s separate return, if (ii) Tax attributable to TEFRA of the return without regard to required to be filed, was timely. partnership items. extensions. (3) Separate application. This (iii) Examples. (2) Treatment of amended returns and paragraph (a) shall be applied separately (8) Providing notice. other documents.—(i) Amended returns with respect to each item or adjustment. (i) In general. filed on or after December 21, 2005, that (4) Duration of suspension period. (ii) Providing notice in TEFRA show an increase in tax liability. If a The suspension period described in partnership proceedings. taxpayer, on or after December 21, 2005, paragraph (a)(1) of this section begins (b) Exceptions. provides to the IRS an amended return the day after the close of the 18-month (1) Failure to file tax return or to pay or one or more other signed written period (36-month period, in the case of tax. documents showing an increase in tax notices provided after November 25, (2) Fraud. liability, the date on which the return 2007, subject to the provisions of (3) Tax shown on return. was filed will, for purposes of this paragraph (a)(5)) beginning on the later (4) Gross misstatement. paragraph (a), be the date on which the of the date on which the return is filed (i) Description. last of the documents was provided. or the due date of the return without (ii) Effect of gross misstatement. Documents described in this paragraph regard to extensions. The suspension * * * * * (a)(2)(i) are provided on the date that period ends 21 days after the earlier of (c) Special rules. they are received by the IRS. the date on which the IRS mails the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52262 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

required notice to the taxpayer’s last February 6, 2008, which is 21 days after the or the tax matters partner (TMP) of a known address, the date on which the IRS provided notice of the additional tax partnership subject to the unified audit required notice is hand-delivered to the liability and the basis for that liability. The and litigation procedures of subchapter suspension period in this example begins 18 taxpayer, or the date on which the IRS months after filing the return (not 36 months) C of chapter 63 of subtitle F of the receives an amended return or other because, as of November 25, 2007, the 18- Internal Revenue Code (TEFRA signed written document showing an month period beginning on the date the partnership procedures) that provides increased tax liability. return was filed had closed without the IRS specific information about the basis for (5) Certain notices provided on or giving notice of the additional liability. Thus, the adjustments to partnership items is after November 26, 2007. If the IRS under the rules in paragraph (a)(5) of this sufficient notice if a partner could provides the notice described in section, the suspension period begins 18 reasonably compute the specific tax paragraph (a)(1) of this section to a months from the April 17, 2006 return filing attributable to the partnership item date. taxpayer on or after November 26, 2007, based on the proposed adjustments as and the notice relates to an individual Example 2. An individual taxpayer files a applied to the partner’s individual tax Federal income tax return that was Federal income tax return for taxable year situation. Documents provided by the timely filed before that date, the 2008 on April 15, 2009. The taxpayer consents to extend the time within which the IRS during a TEFRA partnership following rules will apply: IRS may assess any tax due on the return proceeding that may contain (i) Eighteen-month period has closed. until June 30, 2013. On December 20, 2012, information sufficient to satisfy the If, as of November 25, 2007, the 18- the IRS provides a notice to the taxpayer notice requirements include, but are not month period described in paragraph specifically stating the taxpayer’s liability limited to, a Notice of Final Partnership (a)(1) of this section has closed and the and the basis for the liability. The suspension Administrative Adjustment (FPAA); IRS has not provided the taxpayer with period for the liability identified by the IRS examination reports (for example, Form the notice described in that paragraph begins on April 15, 2012, so the IRS will 4605–A or Form 886–A); or a letter that (a)(1), the suspension described in suspend any interest, penalty, addition to tax, and additional amount with respect to allows the partners an opportunity for paragraph (a)(1) of this section will that liability from that date through January review in the Office of Appeals (60-day begin on the day after the close of the 10, 2013, which is 21 days after the IRS letter). 18-month period. The suspension will provided notice of the additional tax liability (iii) Examples. The following end on the date that is 21 days after the and the basis for that liability. examples illustrate the rules of this notice is provided. (7) Notice of liability and the basis for paragraph (a)(7). (ii) All other cases. In all other cases, the liability.—(i) In general. Notice to Example 1. During an audit of Taxpayer the suspension described in paragraph the taxpayer must be in writing and A’s 2005 taxable year return, the IRS (a)(1) of this section will begin on the specifically state the amount of the questions a charitable deduction claimed on day after the close of the 36-month liability and the basis for the liability. the return. The IRS provides A with a 30-day period described in that paragraph (a)(1) letter that proposes to disallow the charitable The notice must provide the taxpayer contribution deduction resulting in a and end on the date that is 21 days after with sufficient information to identify the notice described in paragraph (a)(1) deficiency of $1,000 and informs A that A which items of income, deduction, loss, may file a written protest of the proposed of this section is provided. or credit the IRS has adjusted or (6) Examples. The following disallowance with the Office of Appeals proposes to adjust, and the reason for within 30 days. The letter includes as an examples, which assume that no that adjustment. Notice of the reason for attachment a copy of the revenue agent’s exceptions in section 6404(g)(2) to the the adjustment does not require a report that states, ‘‘It has not been established general rule of suspension apply, detailed explanation or a citation to any that the amount shown on your return as a illustrate the rules of this paragraph (a). charitable contribution was paid during the Internal Revenue Code section or other tax year. Therefore, this deduction is not Example 1. An individual taxpayer timely legal authority. The IRS need not allowable.’’ The information in the 30-day files a Federal income tax return for taxable incorporate all of the information letter and attachment provides A with notice year 2005 on April 17, 2006. On December necessary to satisfy the notice of the specific amount of the liability and the 11, 2007, the taxpayer mails to the IRS an basis for that liability as described in this amended return reporting an additional item requirement within a single document paragraph (a)(7). of income and an increased tax liability for or provide all of the information at the taxable year 2005. The IRS receives the same time. Documents that may contain Example 2. Taxpayer B is a partner in amended return on December 13, 2007. On information sufficient to constitute partnership P, a TEFRA partnership for January 16, 2008, the IRS provides the notice, either alone or in conjunction taxable year 2005. B claims a distributive taxpayer with a notice stating that the with other documents, include, but are share of partnership income on B’s Federal taxpayer has an additional tax liability based not limited to, statutory notices of income tax return for 2005 timely filed on on the disallowance of a deduction the deficiency; examination reports (for April 17, 2006. On October 1, 2007, during taxpayer claimed on his original return and example, Form 4549, Income Tax the course of a partnership audit of P for did not change on his amended return. The taxable year 2005, the IRS provides P’s TMP date the amended return was received Examination Changes or Form 886–A, with a 60-day letter proposing to adjust P’s substitutes for the date that the original Explanation of Items); Form 870, Waiver income by $10,000. The IRS previously had return was filed with respect to the of Restriction on Assessments and provided the TMP with a copy of the additional item of tax liability reported on Collection of Deficiency in Tax and examination report explaining that the the amended return. Thus, the IRS will not Acceptance of Overassessment; notices adjustment was based on $10,000 of suspend any interest, penalty, addition to of proposed deficiency that allow the unreported net income. On October 31, 2007, tax, or additional amount with respect to the taxpayer an opportunity for review in P’s TMP informs B of the proposed additional item of income and the increased the Office of Appeals (30-day letters); adjustment as required by § 301.6223(g)–1(b). tax liability reported on the amended return. notices pursuant to section 6213(b) By accounting for B’s distributive share of the The suspension period for the additional tax $10,000 of unreported income from P with liability based on the IRS’s disallowance of (mathematical or clerical errors); and B’s other income tax items, B can determine the deduction begins on October 17, 2007, so notice and demand for payment of a B’s tax attributable to the $10,000 partnership the IRS will suspend any interest, penalty, jeopardy assessment under section adjustment. The information in the 60-day addition to tax, and additional amount with 6861. letter and the examination report allows B to respect to the disallowed deduction and (ii) Tax attributable to TEFRA compute the specific amount of the liability additional tax liability from that date through partnership items. Notice to the partner attributable to the adjustment to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52263

partnership item and the basis for that (2) Fraud. Paragraph (a) of this section period described in paragraph (a)(4) of adjustment and therefore satisfies the notice does not apply to any interest, penalty, this section will be tolled for the period requirement of paragraph (a). Because the IRS addition to tax, or additional amount for to which the election applies and will provided that notice to the TMP, B’s agent a year involving a false or fraudulent resume the day after the tolling period under the TEFRA partnership provisions, within 18 months of the April 17, 2006 filing return. If a taxpayer files a fraudulent ends. Tolling will begin on the date the date of B’s return, any interest, penalty, return for a particular year, paragraph election is made and end on the later of addition to tax, or additional amount with (a) of this section may apply to any the date the return for the last taxable respect to B’s tax liability attributable to B’s other tax year of the taxpayer that does year to which the election applies is distributive share of the $10,000 of not involve fraud. Fraud affecting a filed or is due without regard to unreported partnership income will not be particular item on a return precludes extensions. suspended under section 6404(g). paragraph (a) of this section from (ii) (8) Providing notice.—(i) In general. applying to any other items on that Example. In taxable year 2007, taxpayer The IRS may provide notice by mail or return. begins training and showing horses. On in person to the taxpayer or the (3) Tax shown on return. Paragraph (a) January 4, 2011, the taxpayer elects under taxpayer’s representative. If the IRS of this section does not apply to any section 183(e) to defer the determination of mails the notice, it must be sent to the interest, penalty, addition to tax, or whether the horse-related activity will be taxpayer’s last known address under additional amount with respect to any presumed (under section 183(d)) to be engaged in for profit. Accordingly, under rules similar to section 6212(b), except tax liability shown on a return. (4) Gross misstatement.—(i) section 183(e)(1), a determination of whether that certified or registered mail is not the section 183(d) presumption applies will required. Notice is considered provided Description. Paragraph (a) of this section not occur before the close of the 2013 taxable as of the date of mailing or delivery in does not apply to any interest, penalty, year. Assume that in 2014, the IRS is person. addition to tax, or additional amount considering issuing a notice of deficiency for (ii) Providing notice in TEFRA with respect to a gross misstatement. A taxable year 2009 regarding tax deductions partnership proceedings. In the case of gross misstatement for purposes of this claimed for the horse-related activity. TEFRA partnership proceedings, the IRS paragraph (b) means: Pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, must provide notice of final partnership (A) a substantial omission of income the 36-month notification period under paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be tolled administrative adjustments (FPAA) by as described in section 6501(e)(1) or section 6229(c)(2); with respect to taxable year 2009 for the mail to those partners specified in period to which the section 183(e) election section 6223. Within 60 days of an (B) a gross valuation misstatement applies. This tolling of the notification period FPAA being mailed, the TMP is within the meaning of section begins on January 4, 2011 (the date the required to forward notice of the FPAA 6662(h)(2)(A) and (B); or taxpayer made the section 183(e) election) to those partners not entitled to direct (C) a misstatement to which the and ends on the later of April 15, 2014, or notice from the IRS under section 6223. penalty under section 6702(a) applies. the date the taxpayer’s return for taxable year Certain partners with small interests in (ii) Effect of gross misstatement. If a 2013 is filed. partnerships with more than 100 gross misstatement occurs, then (d) Effective/applicability date. *** partners may form a Notice Group and paragraph (a) of this section does not Paragraphs (a), (b)(1) through (b)(4), and designate a partner to receive the FPAA apply to any interest, penalty, addition (c) are effective on August 22, 2011. on their behalf. The IRS may provide to tax, or additional amount with other information after the beginning of respect to any items of income omitted Steven T. Miller, the partnership administrative from the return and with respect to Deputy Commissioner for Services and proceeding to the TMP who, in turn, overstated deductions, even though one Enforcement. must provide that information to the or more of the omitted items would not Approved: July 15, 2011. partners specified in § 301.6223(g)–1 constitute a substantial omission, gross Emily S. McMahon, within 30 days of receipt. Pass-thru valuation misstatement, or misstatement Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury partners who receive notices and other to which section 6702(a) applies. (Tax Policy). information from the IRS or the TMP * * * * * [FR Doc. 2011–21164 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] must forward that notice or information (c) Special rules.—(1) Tentative BILLING CODE 4830–01–P within 30 days to those holding an carryback and refund adjustments. If an interest through the pass-thru partner. amount applied, credited or refunded Information provided by the IRS to the under section 6411 exceeds the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND TMP is deemed to be notice for overassessment properly attributable to SECURITY purposes of this section to those a tentative carryback or refund partners specified in § 301.6223(g)–1 as adjustment, any interest, penalty, Coast Guard of the date the IRS provides that notice addition to tax, or additional amount to the TMP. A similar rule applies to with respect to the excess will not be 33 CFR Part 100 notice provided to the designated suspended. [Docket No. USCG–2011–0744] partner of a Notice Group, and to notice (2) Election under section 183(e).—(i) provided to a pass-thru partner. In the In general. If a taxpayer elects under RIN 1625–AA08 foregoing situations, the TMP, section 183(e) to defer the determination Special Local Regulation for Marine designated partner, and pass-thru of whether the presumption that an Events; Mattaponi Madness Drag Boat partner are agents for direct and indirect activity is engaged in for profit applies, Race, Mattaponi River, Wakema, VA partners. Consequently, notice to these the 18-month (or 36-month) notification agents is deemed to be notice to the period described in paragraph (a)(1) of AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. partners for whom they act. this section will be tolled for the period ACTION: Temporary Final rule. (b) Exceptions.—(1) Failure to file tax to which the election applies. If the 18- return or to pay tax. Paragraph (a) of this month (or 36-month) notification period SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will section does not apply to any penalty has passed as of the date the section establish special local regulations imposed by section 6651. 183(e) election is made, the suspension during the Mattaponi Madness Drag

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52264 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Boat Event, a series of power boat races either the cancellation of the event, or to the Rainbow Acres Campground in to be held on the waters of the require that the event be held without King and Queen County, Virginia. The Mattaponi River, near Wakema, a safety zone. Either course of action power boat races will consist of Virginia. These special local regulations would be contrary to public interest approximately 45 vessels conducting are necessary to provide for the safety of since immediate action is needed to high speed straight line runs along the life on navigable waters during the provide for the safety of life and river and parallel to the shoreline. A events. This action is intended to property on navigable waters. fleet of spectator vessels is expected to restrict vessel traffic during the drag Additionally, delaying the effective date gather near the event site to view the boat races on the Mattaponi River would be contrary to the public interest competition. To provide for the safety of immediately adjacent to the Rainbow since immediate action is needed to participants, spectators and other Acres Campground, located in King and ensure the safety of the event transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will Queen County, near Wakema, Virginia. participants, patrol vessels, spectator temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the DATES: This rule will be effective from craft and other vessels transiting the event area during the power boat races. 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 27, 2011. event area. The potential dangers posed During this enforcement period, In the case of inclement weather, this by drag boat racing, operating in speeds vessels may not enter the regulated area regulation will be effective from 11 a.m. excess of 150 miles per hour, make unless they receive permission from the to 6 p.m. on August 28, 2011. special local regulations necessary. Coast Guard Patrol Commander. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this However, the Coast Guard will provide Discussion of Rule preamble as being available in the advance notifications to users of the effected waterways via marine The Coast Guard is establishing docket are part of docket USCG–2011– special local regulations on specified 0744 and are available online by going information broadcasts, local notice to mariners, commercial radio stations and waters of the Mattaponi River, in the to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting vicinity of Wakema, Virginia. The USCG–2011–0744 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ area newspapers. In addition, publishing an NPRM is unnecessary regulated area includes all waters of box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They Mattaponi River immediately adjacent are also available for inspection or because this event is an annual event which mariners should be aware of to Rainbow Acres Campground in King copying at the Docket Management and Queen County, Virginia. The Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of taking place, as it has been published in the Federal Register since 2009. The regulated area includes a section of the Transportation, West Building Ground Mattaponi River approximately three- Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Coast Guard has never received any comments regarding this event. fourths of a mile long and bounded in Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast width by each shoreline, bounded to the between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Guard finds that good cause exists for east by a line that runs parallel along through Friday, except Federal holidays. making this rule effective less than 30 longitude 076°52′43″ W, near the mouth FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If days after publication in the Federal of Mitchell Hill Creek, and bounded to you have questions on this temporary Register. Delaying the effective date the west by a line that runs parallel rule, call or e-mail LCDR Christopher A. would be contrary to the public interest along longitude 076°53′41″ W just north O’Neal, Waterways Management since immediate action is needed to of Wakema, Virginia. The effect of this Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, ensure the safety of the event regulation would be to restrict general Coast Guard; telephone 757–668–5580, participants, patrol vessels, spectator navigation in the regulated area during e-mail [email protected]. If craft and other vessels transiting the the drag boat races. This special local you have questions on viewing the event area. The potential dangers posed regulation will be enforced from 11 a.m. docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program by drag boat racing, operating in speeds to 6 p.m. on August 27, 2011; and in the Manager, Docket Operations, telephone excess of 150 miles per hour, make case of inclement weather, this special 202–366–9826. special local regulations necessary. local regulation will be enforced from SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: However, the Coast Guard will provide 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 28, 2011. Regulatory Information advance notifications to users of the Except for persons or vessels authorized effected waterways via marine by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, The Coast Guard is issuing this information broadcasts, local notice to no person or vessel may enter or remain temporary final rule without prior mariners, commercial radio stations and in the regulated area. Non-participating notice and opportunity to comment area newspapers. In addition, vessels will be allowed to transit the pursuant to authority under section 4(a) publishing an NPRM is unnecessary regulated area between races, when the of the Administrative Procedure Act because this event is an annual event Coast Guard Patrol Commander (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision which mariners should be aware of determines it is safe to do so. This authorizes an agency to issue a rule taking place, as it has been published in regulation is needed to control vessel without prior notice and opportunity to the Federal Register since 2009. The traffic during the event to enhance the comment when the agency for good Coast Guard has never received any safety of participants, spectators and cause finds that those procedures are comments regarding this event. transiting vessels. ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary In addition to notice in the Federal Background and Purpose to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. Register, the maritime community will 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that The Mattaponi Volunteer Rescue be provided extensive advance good cause exists for not publishing a Squad will be sponsoring a series of notification via the Local Notice to notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) power boat racing events titled the Mariners, and marine information with respect to this rule because the ‘‘Mattaponi Madness Drag Boat Event.’’ broadcasts so mariners can adjust their Coast Guard did not receive the The power boat races will be held on plans accordingly. application for this event in sufficient the following date: August 27, 2011, and time to allow for publication of an in the case of inclement weather, the Regulatory Analyses NPRM, and any delay encountered in event will be rescheduled to August 28, We developed this rule after this regulation’s effective date by 2011. The races will be held on the considering numerous statutes and publishing a NPRM would require Mattaponi River immediately adjacent executive orders related to rulemaking.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52265

Below we summarize our analyses and that this rule would have a Taking of Private Property based on 13 of these statutes or significant economic impact on it, This rule will not affect a taking of executive orders. please submit a comment (see private property or otherwise have Regulatory Planning and Review ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it taking implications under Executive qualifies and how and to what degree Order 12630, Governmental Actions and This rule is not a significant this rule would economically affect it. Interference with Constitutionally regulatory action under section 3(f) of Protected Property Rights. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Assistance for Small Entities Planning and Review, and does not Civil Justice Reform Under section 213(a) of the Small require an assessment of potential costs This rule meets applicable standards and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order. The Office of Management and Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to Budget has not reviewed it under that we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can minimize litigation, eliminate Order. Although this rule prevents ambiguity, and reduce burden. traffic from transiting a portion of better evaluate its effects on them and certain waterways during specified participate in the rulemaking process. Protection of Children events, the effect of this regulation will Small businesses may send comments We have analyzed this rule under not be significant due to the limited on the actions of Federal employees Executive Order 13045, Protection of duration that the regulated area will be who enforce, or otherwise determine Children from Environmental Health in effect and the extensive advance compliance with, Federal regulations to Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not notifications that will be made to the the Small Business and Agriculture an economically significant rule and maritime community via marine Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman does not create an environmental risk to information broadcasts, local radio and the Regional Small Business health or risk to safety that may stations and area newspapers so Regulatory Fairness Boards. The disproportionately affect children. mariners can adjust their plans. Ombudsman evaluates these actions Indian Tribal Governments Small Entities annually and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you This rule does not have Tribal Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act wish to comment on actions by implications under Executive Order (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 13175, Consultation and Coordination whether this rule would have a 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The with Indian Tribal Governments, significant economic impact on a Coast Guard will not retaliate against because it does not have a substantial substantial number of small entities. small entities that question or complain direct effect on one or more Indian The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises Tribes, on the relationship between the about this rule or any policy or action small businesses, not-for-profit Federal Government and Indian Tribes, of the Coast Guard. organizations that are independently or on the distribution of power and owned and operated and are not Collection of Information responsibilities between the Federal dominant in their fields, and Government and Indian Tribes. governmental jurisdictions with This rule calls for no new collection populations of less than 50,000. of information under the Paperwork Energy Effects The Coast Guard certifies under 5 Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– We have analyzed this rule under U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 3520). Executive Order 13211, Actions a significant economic impact on a Concerning Regulations That Federalism substantial number of small entities. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, The rule would affect the following A rule has implications for federalism Distribution, or Use. We have entities, some of which might be small under Executive Order 13132, determined that it is not a ‘‘significant entities: the owners or operators of Federalism, if it has a substantial direct energy action’’ under that order because vessels intending to transit or anchor in effect on State or local governments and it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ this section of Mattaponi River during would either preempt State law or under Executive Order 12866 and is not the event from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on impose a substantial direct cost of likely to have a significant adverse effect August 27 or from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on compliance on them. We have analyzed on the supply, distribution, or use of August 28, 2011. this rule under that Order and have energy. The Administrator of the Office Although this regulation prevents determined that it does not have of Information and Regulatory Affairs traffic from transiting a portion of implications for federalism. has not designated it as a significant Mattaponi River during the event, this energy action. Therefore, it does not rule would not have a significant Unfunded Mandates Reform Act require a Statement of Energy Effects economic impact on a substantial under Executive Order 13211. number of small entities for the The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act following reasons. This rule would be in of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Technical Standards effect for only a limited period. Vessel Federal agencies to assess the effects of The National Technology Transfer traffic will be able to transit the their discretionary regulatory actions. In and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 regulated area between heats if the Coast particular, the Act addresses actions U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use Guard Patrol Commander deems it is that may result in the expenditure by a voluntary consensus standards in their safe to do so. Before the enforcement State, local, or Tribal government, in the regulatory activities unless the agency period, the Coast Guard will issue aggregate, or by the private sector of provides Congress, through the Office of maritime advisories so mariners can $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or Management and Budget, with an adjust their plans accordingly. more in any one year. Though this rule explanation of why using these If you think that your business, will not result in such an expenditure, standards would be inconsistent with organization, or governmental we do discuss the effects of this rule applicable law or otherwise impractical. jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity elsewhere in this preamble. Voluntary consensus standards are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52266 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

technical standards (e.g., specifications immediately adjacent to Rainbow Acres the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone on of materials, performance, design, or Campground in King and Queen the Detroit River, from the Ambassador operation; test methods; sampling County, Virginia. The regulated area Bridge to the western tip of Belle Isle. procedures; and related management includes a section of the Mattaponi This safety zone is intended to restrict systems practices) that are developed or River approximately three-fourths of a vessels from portions of the Detroit adopted by voluntary consensus mile long and bounded in width by each River during the Coast Guard Exercise. standards bodies. shoreline, bounded to the east by a line This safety zone is necessary to protect This rule does not use technical that runs parallel along longitude the public from the hazards associated standards. Therefore, we did not 076°52′43″ W, near the mouth of with this Coast Guard exercise. consider the use of voluntary consensus Mitchell Hill Creek, and bounded to the DATES: This rule is effective and will be standards. west by a line that runs parallel along enforced from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on longitude 076°53′41″ W just north of Environment August 23, 2011. Wakema, Virginia. All coordinates We have analyzed this rule under reference Datum NAD 1983. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this Department of Homeland Security (b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol preamble as being available in the Management Directive 023–01 and Commander means a commissioned, docket are part of docket USCG–2011– Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, warrant or petty officer of the Coast 0754 and are available online by going which guide the Coast Guard in Guard who has been designated by the to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting complying with the National Commander, Coast Guard Sector USCG–2011–0754 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Hampton Roads. box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and (2) Official Patrol means any vessel are also available for inspection or have concluded this action is one of a assigned or approved by Commander, copying at the Docket Management category of actions which do not Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of individually or cumulatively have a with a commissioned, warrant or petty Transportation, West Building Ground significant effect on the human officer on board and displaying a Coast Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey environment. This rule is categorically Guard ensign. Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (c) Special Local Regulations. (1) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday (34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule Except for persons or vessels authorized through Friday, except Federal holidays. involves implementation of regulations by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to no person or vessel may enter or remain you have questions on this temporary organized marine events on the in the regulated area. rule, call or e-mail LT Adrian (2) The operator of any vessel in the navigable waters of the United States Palomeque, Prevention Department, that may have potential for negative regulated area shall: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone impact on the safety or other interest of (313)568–9508, e-mail Adrian.F. waterway users and shore side activities directed to do so by an Official Patrol. (ii) Proceed as directed by any official [email protected]. If you have in the event area. The category of water questions on viewing the docket, call activities includes but is not limited to patrol. (d) Enforcement Period: This Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, sail boat regattas, boat parades, power regulation will be enforced from 11 a.m. Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– boat racing, swimming events, crew to 6 p.m. on August 27, 2011. In the case 9826. racing, and sail board racing. Under of inclement weather, this regulation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), of the will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Instruction, an environmental analysis Regulatory Information on August 28, 2011. checklist and a categorical exclusion The Coast Guard is issuing this determination will be available in the Dated: August 2, 2011. temporary final rule without prior docket where indicated under Mark S. Ogle, notice and opportunity to comment ADDRESSES. Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads. pursuant to authority under section 4(a) List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 of the Administrative Procedure Act [FR Doc. 2011–21327 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision Marine safety, Navigation (water), BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Reporting and recordkeeping authorizes an agency to issue a rule requirements, Waterways. without prior notice and opportunity to For the reasons discussed in the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND comment when the agency for good preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 SECURITY cause finds that those procedures are CFR part 100 as follows: ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary Coast Guard to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that NAVIGABLE WATERS 33 CFR Part 165 good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [Docket No. USCG–2011–0754] ■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 with respect to this rule because doing continues to read as follows: RIN 1625–AA00 so would be impracticable and contrary Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. to the public interest. Notice was not Safety Zone; Coast Guard Exercise, received in sufficient time for the Coast Add temporary § 100.35T05–XXXX to Detroit River, Ambassador Bridge to Guard to solicit public comments before read as follows: the Western Tip of Belle Isle the start of the event. Thus, waiting for § 100.35T05–XXXX Special Local AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. a notice and comment period to run Regulation; Mattaponi Madness Drag Boat ACTION: Temporary final rule. would be impracticable and contrary to Race, Mattaponi River, Wakema, Virginia the public interest because it would (a) Regulated Area. The regulated area SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is inhibit the Coast Guard’s ability to includes all waters of Mattaponi River establishing a temporary safety zone in protect the public from the hazards

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52267

associated with this Coast Guard Budget has not reviewed it under that we offer to assist small entities in exercise. Order. understanding the rule so that they can Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast We expect the economic impact of better evaluate its effects on them and Guard finds that good cause exists for this rule to be so minimal that a full participate in the rulemaking process. making this rule effective less than 30 Regulatory Evaluation under the Small businesses may send comments days after publication in the Federal regulatory policies and procedures of on the actions of Federal employees Register. For the same reasons DHS is unnecessary. This determination who enforce, or otherwise determine discussed in the preceding paragraph, is based on the short time that vessels compliance with, Federal regulations to waiting for the 30 day notice period to will be restricted from the area of water the Small Business and Agriculture run rule would be impracticable and impacted by the safety zone. Under Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman contrary to the public interest of certain conditions, moreover, vessels and the Regional Small Business ensuring the safety of spectators and may still transit through the safety zone Regulatory Fairness Boards. The vessels during this event and immediate when permitted by the Captain of the Ombudsman evaluates these actions action is necessary to prevent possible Port. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the annually and rates each agency’s loss of life or property. regulatory policies and procedures of responsiveness to small business. If you the Department of Homeland Security wish to comment on actions by Background and Purpose (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– On August 23, 2011, an exercise will a significant regulatory action because 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The be conducted by the Coast Guard along we anticipate that during the short time Coast Guard will not retaliate against with local facilities and response this zone will be in effect, it will have small entities that question or complain organizations. minimal impact on the economy, will about this rule or any policy or action not interfere with other agencies, will of the Coast Guard. Discussion of Rule not adversely alter the budget of any Collection of Information This safety zone is necessary to grant or loan recipients, and will not ensure the safety of the public from the raise any novel or legal policy issue. This rule calls for no new collection hazards associated with the Coast Guard Small Entities of information under the Paperwork Exercise. The exercise will occur Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. on August 3520). 23, 2011. This rule will be in effect and (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered the safety zone will be enforced from 8 whether this rule would have a Federalism significant economic impact on a a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2011. A rule has implications for federalism substantial number of small entities. The safety zone will begin at under Executive Order 13132, The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises Ambassador Bridge to the western tip of Federalism, if it has a substantial direct small businesses, not-for-profit Belle Isle and encompass all U.S. waters effect on State or local governments and organizations that are independently of the Detroit River starting at position would either preempt State law or owned and operated and are not 42°18′45″ N, 083°04′28″ W; to position impose a substantial direct cost of dominant in their fields, and 42°19′59″ N, 083°00′18″ W. All compliance on them. We have analyzed governmental jurisdictions with geographic coordinates are North this rule under that Order and have populations of less than 50,000. American Datum of 1983 [NAD 83]. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 determined that it does not have All persons and vessels shall comply U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have implications for federalism. with the instructions of the Captain of a significant economic impact on a Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the Port Detroit or his designated on substantial number of small entities. scene representative. Entry into, This rule will affect the following The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act transiting, or anchoring within the entities, some of which may be small of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires safety zone is prohibited unless entities: the owners and operators of Federal agencies to assess the effects of authorized by the Captain of the Port vessels intending to transit or anchor in their discretionary regulatory actions. In Detroit or his designated on scene a portion of the Detroit River between particular, the Act addresses actions representative. The Captain of the Port Ambassador bridge and the western tip that may result in the expenditure by a Detroit or his designated on scene of Belle Isle, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. State, local, or Tribal government, in the representative may be contacted via on August 23, 2011. aggregate, or by the private sector of VHF Channel 21. This safety zone will not have a $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule Regulatory Analyses significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for will not result in such expenditure, we We developed this rule after the following reasons: This rule will do discuss the effects of this rule considering numerous statutes and only be in effect and enforced for seven elsewhere in this preamble. executive orders related to rulemaking. hours on one day. Vessels may also Taking of Private Property Below we summarize our analyses request permission from the Captain of based on 13 of these statutes or the Port Detroit to transit through the This rule will not cause a taking of executive orders. safety zone. The Coast Guard will give private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Regulatory Planning and Review notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is Order 12630, Governmental Actions and This rule is not a significant in effect, allowing vessel owners and Interference with Constitutionally regulatory action under section 3(f) of operators to plan accordingly. Protected Property Rights. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Civil Justice Reform Planning and Review, and does not Assistance for Small Entities require an assessment of potential costs Under section 213(a) of the Small This rule meets applicable standards and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Business Regulatory Enforcement in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order. The Office of Management and Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52268 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

minimize litigation, eliminate Environment (2) This safety zone is closed to all ambiguity, and reduce burden. We have analyzed this rule under vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Protection of Children Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Detroit or his designated on-scene We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, representative. Executive Order 13045, Protection of which guide the Coast Guard in (3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of Children from Environmental Health complying with the National the Captain of the Port is any Coast Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty an economically significant rule and (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and officer who has been designated by the does not create an environmental risk to have concluded this action is one of a Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. health or risk to safety that may category of actions that do not The on-scene representative of the disproportionately affect children. individually or cumulatively have a Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary Indian Tribal Governments significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically vessel. The Captain of the Port or his This rule does not have Tribal excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph designated on scene representative may implications under Executive Order (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule be contacted via VHF Channel 21. 13175, Consultation and Coordination involves the establishment of a safety (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter with Indian Tribal Governments, zone which will only be effective or operate within the safety zone should because it does not have a substantial temporarily and is therefore contact the Captain of the Port Detroit direct effect on one or more Indian categorically excluded under paragraph or his on-scene representative to obtain Tribes, on the relationship between the 34(g) of the Instruction. permission to do so. Vessel operators Federal Government and Indian Tribes, A final environmental analysis given permission to enter or operate in or on the distribution of power and checklist and a categorical exclusion the safety zone must comply with all responsibilities between the Federal determination are available in the directions given to them by the Captain Government and Indian Tribes. docket where indicated under of the Port or his on-scene representative. Energy Effects ADDRESSES. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Dated: August 8, 2011. We have analyzed this rule under E. J. Marohn, Executive Order 13211, Actions Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation Commander, U. S. Coast Guard, Acting Concerning Regulations That (water), Reporting and record keeping Captain of the Port Detroit. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, requirements, Security measures, [FR Doc. 2011–21331 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Distribution, or Use. We have Waterways. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P determined that it is not a ‘‘significant For the reasons discussed in the energy action’’ under that order because preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ CFR part 165 as follows: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND under Executive Order 12866 and is not SECURITY likely to have a significant adverse effect PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION on the supply, distribution, or use of AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Coast Guard energy. The Administrator of the Office ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 of Information and Regulatory Affairs 33 CFR Part 165 has not designated it as a significant continues to read as follows: energy action. Therefore, it does not Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. [Docket No. USCG–2011–0578] require a Statement of Energy Effects Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR under Executive Order 13211. 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. RIN 1625–AA00 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Technical Standards Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy The National Technology Transfer ■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0754 to read as Pier East, Chicago, IL follows: and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use § 165.T09–0754 Safety Zone; Coast Guard ACTION: Notice of enforcement of voluntary consensus standards in their Exercise, Detroit River, Ambassador Bridge regulation. regulatory activities unless the agency to the western tip of Belle Isle. provides Congress, through the Office of (a) Location. The safety zone will SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce Management and Budget, with an begin at Ambassador Bridge to the the Navy Pier East Safety Zone in explanation of why using these western tip of Belle Isle, and encompass Chicago Harbor from August 12, 2011 standards would be inconsistent with all U.S. waters of the Detroit River, through August 14, 2011 and again from applicable law or otherwise impractical. starting at position 42°18′45″ N, September 28, 2011 through October 1, Voluntary consensus standards are 083°04′28″ W; to position 42°19′59″ N, 2011. This action is necessary and technical standards (e.g., specifications 083°00′18″ W. (DATUM: NAD 83). intended to ensure safety of life on the of materials, performance, design, or (b) Effective Period. This regulation is navigable waters of the United States operation; test methods; sampling effective and will be enforced from 8 immediately prior to, during, and procedures; and related management a.m. until 3 p.m. on August 23, 2011. immediately after match race events. systems practices) that are developed or (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with This rule will establish restrictions adopted by voluntary consensus the general regulations in § 165.23 of upon, and control movement of, vessels standards bodies. this part, entry into, transiting, or in a specified area immediately prior to, This rule does not use technical anchoring within this safety zone is during, and immediately after match standards. Therefore, we did not prohibited unless authorized by the race events. During the enforcement consider the use of voluntary consensus Captain of the Port Detroit, or his period, no person or vessel may enter standards. designated on-scene representative. the safety zone without the permission

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52269

of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Dated: August 10, 2011. Regulatory Information Michigan. M. W. Sibley, The Coast Guard is issuing this DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the temporary final rule without prior 165.933 will be enforced daily from 8 Port, Sector Lake Michigan. notice and opportunity to comment a.m. until 8 p.m. on August 12–14, 2011 [FR Doc. 2011–21334 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] pursuant to authority under section 4(a) and again from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on BILLING CODE 9110–04–P of the Administrative Procedure Act September 28, 2011 through October 1, (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 2011. authorizes an agency to issue a rule DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND without prior notice and opportunity to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If SECURITY comment when the agency for good you have questions on this notice, call Coast Guard cause finds that those procedures are or e-mail BM1 Adam Kraft, Prevention ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 33 CFR Part 165 to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at 414–747– 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 7154, e-mail [email protected]. good cause exists for not publishing a [Docket No. USCG–2011–0752] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) Guard will enforce the safety zone; 33 with respect to this rule because doing CFR 165.933–Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier RIN 1625–AA00 so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Notice was not East, Chicago, IL for the following Safety Zone; Port Huron Float Down, received in sufficient time for the Coast events: St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI (1) Chicago Match Race; on August Guard to solicit public comments before 12, 2011 from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m.; on AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. the start of the event. Thus, waiting for August 13, 2011 from 8 a.m. through 8 ACTION: Temporary final rule. a notice and comment period to run p.m.; on August 14, 2011 from 8 a.m. would be impracticable and contrary to through 8 p.m.; on September 28, 2011 SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is the public interest because it would from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m.; on establishing a temporary safety zone in inhibit the Coast Guard’s ability to September 29, 2011 from 8 a.m. through the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone on protect the public from the hazards 8 p.m.; on September 30, 2011 from 8 the St. Clair River, Port Huron, associated with this Coast Guard a.m. through 8 p.m.; and on October 1, Michigan. This safety zone is intended exercise. 2011 from 8 a.m. through 8 p.m. to restrict vessels from portions of the Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast St. Clair River during the Port Huron Guard finds that good cause exists for All vessels must obtain permission Float Down. Though this is an making this rule effective less than 30- from the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake unsanctioned, non-permitted event, this days after publication in the Federal Michigan, or his or her on-scene temporary safety zone is necessary to Register. For the same reasons representative to enter, move within or protect spectators and vessels from the discussed in the preceding paragraph, exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons hazards associated with river tubing and waiting for the 30-day notice period to granted permission to enter the safety float-down events. run would be impracticable and zone shall obey all lawful orders or contrary to the public interest because directions of the Captain of the Port, DATES: This rule is effective and will be enforced from 12 to 8 p.m. on August immediate action is necessary to Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on- prevent possible loss of life or property. scene representative. While within a 21, 2011. safety zone, all vessels shall operate at ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this Background and Purpose the minimum speed necessary to preamble as being available in the On August 21, 2011, a non-permitted maintain a safe course. docket are part of docket USCG–2011– public event has been advertised over This notice is issued under authority 0752 and are available online by going various social-media sites in which a of 33 CFR 165.933 Safety Zone, Chicago to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting large number of persons may float down Harbor, Navy Pier East, Chicago IL and USCG–2011–0752 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ a segment of the St. Clair River using 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They inner tubes and other similar floatation notice in the Federal Register, the Coast are also available for inspection or devices. This event took place in 2009/ Guard will provide the maritime copying at the Docket Management 2010, though it did not receive a state community with advance notification of Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of or Federal permit, it drew in over 5,000 these enforcement periods via broadcast Transportation, West Building Ground participants. Despite the plan put Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey together by the Federal, state and local Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, officials, emergency responders and LE Sector Lake Michigan, will issue a between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday officials were overwhelmed with Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying through Friday, except Federal holidays. medical emergencies, people drifting the public when enforcement of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If across the international border, and safety zone established by this section is you have questions on this temporary people trespassing on residential suspended. If the Captain of the Port, rule, call or e-mail Lt. Adrian property when trying to get out of the Sector Lake Michigan, determines that Palomeque, Prevention Department, water before the designated finish line. the safety zone need not be enforced for Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone Promotional information for the event the full duration stated in this notice, he (313)568–9508, e-mail continues to be published, and more or she may use a Broadcast Notice to [email protected]. If you than 5,000 people are anticipated to Mariners to grant general permission to have questions on viewing the docket, float down the river this year. enter the safety zone. The Captain of the call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Based on the amount of public Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– participation and safety concerns on-scene representative may be 9826. identified in 2009 and 2010, the Captain contacted via VHF Channel 16. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of the Port Detroit has determined that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the 2011 float-down poses significant require an assessment of potential costs annually and rates each agency’s risks to public safety and property. The and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that responsiveness to small business. If you likely combination of large numbers of Order. The Office of Management and wish to comment on actions by participants, strong river currents, Budget has not reviewed it under that employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– limited rescue resources, and difficult Order. 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The emergency response scenarios could We expect the economic impact of Coast Guard will not retaliate against easily result in serious injuries or this rule to be so minimal that a full small entities that question or complain fatalities to float-down participants and Regulatory Evaluation under the about this rule or any policy or action spectators. Establishing a safety zone to regulatory policies and procedures of of the Coast Guard. control movement at the location of the DHS is unnecessary. This determination Collection of Information float-down will help ensure the safety of is based on the short time that vessels persons and property and minimize the will be restricted from the area of water This rule calls for no new collection associated risks. impacted by the safety zone. of information under the Paperwork Discussion of Rule Small Entities Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520). This safety zone is necessary to Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ensure the safety of spectators, vessels, (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered Federalism and the public from the hazards whether this rule would have a associated with the Port Huron Float significant economic impact on a A rule has implications for Down. The 2011 float-down event will substantial number of small entities. Federalism under Executive Order occur between about 1 and 5 p.m. on The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial August 21, 2011. This rule will be in small businesses, not-for-profit direct effect on State or local effect and the safety zone will be organizations that are independently governments and would either preempt enforced from 12 to 8 p.m. on August owned and operated and are not State law or impose a substantial direct 21, 2011. dominant in their fields, and cost of compliance on them. We have The safety zone will begin at governmental jurisdictions with analyzed this rule under that Order and Lighthouse Beach and encompass all populations of less than 50,000. have determined that it does not have U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound The Coast Guard certifies under 5 implications for Federalism. by a line starting at a point on land U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have Unfunded Mandates Reform Act north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron a significant economic impact on a at position 43°00′25″ N; 082°25′20″ W, substantial number of small entities. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act extending east to the international This rule will affect the following of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires boundary to a point at position entities, some of which may be small Federal agencies to assess the effects of 43°00′25″ N; 082°25′02″ W, following entities: the owners and operators of their discretionary regulatory actions. In south along the international boundary vessels intending to transit or anchor in particular, the Act addresses actions to a point at position 42°54′30″ N; a portion of the St. Clair River near Port that may result in the expenditure by a 082°27′41″ W, extending west to a point Huron, MI between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. State, local, or Tribal government, in the on land (just north of Stag Island) at on August 21, 2011. aggregate, or by the private sector of position 42°54′30″ N; 082°27′58″ W, and This safety zone will not have a $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or following north along the U.S. shoreline significant economic impact on a more in any one year. Though this rule to the point of origin. All geographic substantial number of small entities for will not result in such expenditure, we coordinates are North American Datum the following reasons: this rule will only do discuss the effects of this rule of 1983 [NAD 83]. be in effect and enforced for eight hours elsewhere in this preamble. All persons and vessels shall comply on one day. Vessels may request Taking of Private Property with the instructions of the Captain of permission from the Captain of the Port the Port Detroit or his designated on Detroit to transit through the safety This rule will not cause a taking of scene representative. Entry into, zone. The Coast Guard will give notice private property or otherwise have transiting, or anchoring within the to the public via a Broadcast Notice to taking implications under Executive safety zone is prohibited unless Mariners that the regulation is in effect, Order 12630, Governmental Actions and authorized by the Captain of the Port allowing vessel owners and operators to Interference with Constitutionally Detroit or his designated on scene plan accordingly. Protected Property Rights. representative. The Captain of the Port Assistance for Small Entities Detroit or his designated on scene Civil Justice Reform Under section 213(a) of the Small representative may be contacted via This rule meets applicable standards VHF Channel 21. Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104– in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Regulatory Analyses 121), we offer to assist small entities in Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to We developed this rule after understanding the rule so that they can minimize litigation, eliminate considering numerous statutes and better evaluate its effects on them and ambiguity, and reduce burden. executive orders related to rulemaking. participate in the rulemaking process. Protection of Children Below we summarize our analyses Small businesses may send comments based on 13 of these statutes or on the actions of Federal employees We have analyzed this rule under executive orders. who enforce, or otherwise determine Executive Order 13045, Protection of compliance with, Federal regulations to Children from Environmental Health Regulatory Planning and Review the Small Business and Agriculture Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not This rule is not a significant Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman an economically significant rule and regulatory action under section 3(f) of and the Regional Small Business does not create an environmental risk to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Regulatory Fairness Boards. The health or risk to safety that may Planning and Review, and does not Ombudsman evaluates these actions disproportionately affect children.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52271

Indian Tribal Governments environment. This rule is categorically permitted by the Captain of the Port This rule does not have Tribal excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph Detroit or his designated on-scene implications under Executive Order (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule representative. 13175, Consultation and Coordination involves the establishment of a safety (3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of with Indian Tribal Governments, zone which will only be effective the Captain of the Port is any Coast because it does not have a substantial temporarily and is therefore Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty direct effect on one or more Indian categorically excluded under paragraph officer who has been designated by the Tribes, on the relationship between the 34(g) of the Instruction. Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. Federal Government and Indian Tribes, A final environmental analysis The on-scene representative of the or on the distribution of power and checklist and a categorical exclusion Captain of the Port will be aboard either responsibilities between the Federal determination are available in the a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary Government and Indian Tribes. docket where indicated under vessel. The Captain of the Port or his ADDRESSES. designated on scene representative may Energy Effects be contacted via VHF Channel 21. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 We have analyzed this rule under (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter Executive Order 13211, Actions Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation or operate within the safety zone should Concerning Regulations That (water), Reporting and record keeping contact the Captain of the Port Detroit Significantly Affect Energy Supply, requirements, Security measures, or his on-scene representative to obtain Distribution, or Use. We have Waterways. permission to do so. Vessel operators determined that it is not a ‘‘significant For the reasons discussed in the given permission to enter or operate in energy action’’ under that order because preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 the safety zone must comply with all it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ CFR part 165 as follows: directions given to them by the Captain under Executive Order 12866 and is not of the Port or his on-scene likely to have a significant adverse effect PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION representative. on the supply, distribution, or use of AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Dated: August 9, 2011. energy. The Administrator of the Office ■ J. E. Ogden, of Information and Regulatory Affairs 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the has not designated it as a significant Port Detroit. energy action. Therefore, it does not Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 2011–21341 Filed 8–18–11; 4:15 pm] require a Statement of Energy Effects Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR under Executive Order 13211. 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Technical Standards Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The National Technology Transfer ■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0752 to read as DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 follows: U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 34 CFR Part 668 voluntary consensus standards in their § 165.T09–0752 Safety Zone; Port Huron [Docket ID ED–2009–OPE–0003] regulatory activities unless the agency Float Down; St. Clair River; Port Huron, MI. RIN 1840–AC95 provides Congress, through the Office of (a) Location. The safety zone will begin at Lighthouse Beach and Management and Budget, with an Institutions and Lender Requirements encompass all U.S. waters of the St. explanation of why using these Relating to Education Loans, Student Clair River, Port Huron, MI, bound by a standards would be inconsistent with Assistance General Provisions, line starting at a point on land north of applicable law or otherwise impractical. Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Coast Guard Station Port Huron at Voluntary consensus standards are Family Education Loan Program, and position 43°00′25″ N; 082°25′20″ W, technical standards (e.g., specifications William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan extending east to the international of materials, performance, design, or Program; Corrections operation; test methods; sampling boundary to a point at position procedures; and related management 43°00′25″ N; 082°25′02″ W, following AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary systems practices) that are developed or south along the international boundary Education, Department of Education. adopted by voluntary consensus to a point at position 42°54′30″ N; ACTION: Correcting amendments. standards bodies. 082°27′41″ W, extending west to a point This rule does not use technical on land (just north of Stag Island) at SUMMARY: On October 28, 2009, the standards. Therefore, we did not position 42°54′30″ N; 082°27′58″ W, and Department of Education (Department) consider the use of voluntary consensus following north along the U.S. shoreline published final regulations in the standards. to the point of origin. (DATUM: NAD Federal Register to implement 83). requirements relating to education loans Environment (b) Effective Period. This regulation is that were added to the Higher Education We have analyzed this rule under effective and will be enforced from 12 Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), by the Department of Homeland Security p.m. until 8 p.m. on August 21, 2011. Higher Education Opportunity Act Management Directive 023–01 and (c) Regulations. (HEOA). The Department also amended Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, (1) In accordance with the general regulations for the Student Assistance which guide the Coast Guard in regulations in section 165.23 of this General Provisions, Federal Perkins complying with the National part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring Loan Program, Federal Family Environmental Policy Act of 1969 within this safety zone is prohibited Education Loan Program, and William (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and unless authorized by the Captain of the D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program to have concluded this action is one of a Port Detroit, or his designated on-scene implement certain provisions of the category of actions that do not representative. HEA that involve school-based loan individually or cumulatively have a (2) This safety zone is closed to all issues and that were affected by the significant effect on the human vessel traffic, except as may be statutory changes made to the HEA by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the HEOA. That document inadvertently Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This included minor technical errors in the 1070g, 1085, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099c, document amends 38 CFR part 17 to amendments to 34 CFR part 668. This and 1099c–1, unless otherwise noted. conform certain sections with statutory document corrects the final regulations. § 668.16 [Corrected] amendments made by sections 511 DATES: August 22, 2011. through 513 of the Caregivers and ■ 2. In § 668.16(m)(2)(iv), add the word Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ‘‘will’’ after the word ‘‘we’’. Marty Guthrie, U.S. Department of of 2010 (the Act), Public Law 163–111. Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room § 668.213 [Corrected] Sections 512 and 513 of the Act amended statutory provisions affecting 8042, Washington, DC 20006–8502. ■ 3. In § 668.213— the enrollment of veterans in the VA Telephone: (202) 219–7031 or via the ■ A. In paragraph (g)(1), add the words Internet at: [email protected]. health care system. VA’s enrollment ‘‘or of a rate described in paragraph regulation, 38 CFR 17.36, must be If you use a telecommunications (a)(2) of this section’’ after the words device for the deaf (TDD), call the revised accordingly. ‘‘you receive the notice of your loss of First, section 512 of the Act amended Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at eligibility’’. 38 U.S.C. 1705(a)(3) to add ‘‘veterans 1–800–877–8339. ■ B. In paragraph (g)(2), add the words who were awarded the [M]edal of Individuals with disabilities can ‘‘or of a rate described in paragraph [H]onor under [10 U.S.C.] 3741, 6241 or obtain this document in an accessible (a)(2) of this section’’ after the words 8741 or [14 U.S.C.] 491’’ to the list of format (e.g., braille, large print, ‘‘you receive the notice of your loss of veterans included in enrollment priority audiotape, or compact disc) on request eligibility’’. category three. Accordingly, we have to the contact person listed in this (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance revised 38 CFR 17.36(b)(3), our section. Numbers: 84.032 Federal Family Education regulation implementing enrollment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Loan Program; 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan priority category three, consistent with document corrects minor technical Program; 84.268 William D. Ford Federal the amendment of section 1705 . errors included in the final regulations Direct Loan Program.) Second, section 513 of the Act which were published in the Federal amended 38 U.S.C. 1710(e) to prescribe Dated: August 17, 2011. Register on October 28, 2009 (74 FR August 2, 1990, through November 11, 55626). Eduardo M. Ochoa, 1998, as the specific period of time for Electronic Access to This Document: Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary enrollment eligibility based on active The official version of this document is Education. duty service in the Southwest Asia the document published in the Federal [FR Doc. 2011–21356 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] theater of operations during the Gulf Register. Free Internet access to the BILLING CODE 4000–01–P War. Consistent with the statutory official edition of the Federal Register amendment, we are amending and the Code of Federal Regulations is § 17.36(a)(3) and (b)(6) to include those available via the Federal Digital System DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS specific dates. at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this AFFAIRS Third, section 511 of the Act amended title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), to site you can view this document, as well 38 CFR Part 17 as all other documents of this add section 1730A, which reads as Department published in the Federal RIN 2900–AN85 follows: ‘‘Notwithstanding subsections Register, in text or Adobe Portable (f) and (g) of [38 U.S.C. 1710 and Document Format (PDF). To use PDF Technical Revisions To Conform to the 1722A(a)] or any other provision of law, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus the Secretary may not require a veteran which is available free at the site. Health Services Act of 2010 who is catastrophically disabled, as defined by the Secretary, to make any You may also access documents of the AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. Department published in the Federal copayment for the receipt of hospital ACTION: Final rule. Register by using the article search care or medical services under the laws administered by the Secretary.’’ In feature at: http:// SUMMARY: This final rule amends current 38 CFR 17.108(d), VA exempts www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 10 classes of veterans from the through the advanced search feature at medical regulations to incorporate copayment requirements for inpatient this site, you can limit your search to statutory amendments. Certain statutes hospital care or outpatient medical care. documents published by the authorizing VA health care benefits In current 38 CFR 17.110(c), we exempt Department. were amended by the Caregivers and 8 classes of veterans from copayment Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 668 requirements for medication. Finally, in of 2010. The statutory amendments current 38 CFR 17.111(f), we exempt 7 Administrative practice and affect enrollment in certain health care classes of veterans from payment procedure, Colleges and universities, priority categories and exempt requirements for extended care services. Consumer protection, Education, Loan catastrophically disabled veterans from Consistent with section 1730A, we are programs—education, Reporting and copayment requirements. recordkeeping requirements, Student amending each of these regulations to DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is aid. add the new exemption for effective August 22, 2011. Accordingly, 34 CFR part 668 is catastrophically disabled veterans. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: corrected by making the following Regarding the copayment exemption correcting amendments: Roscoe Butler, Deputy Director, for extended care services, we note that Business Policy, Chief Business Office under section 1730A, VA may exempt PART 668—STUDENT ASSISTANCE (163), Veterans Health Administration, copayments for extended care services GENERAL PROVISIONS Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 that are considered hospital care or Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC medical services. In 38 U.S.C. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 668 20420, (202) 461–1586. (This is not a 1701(6)(E), Congress defined ‘‘medical continues to read as follows: toll free number). services’’ as including

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52273

‘‘[n]oninstitutional extended care 1730A, we have explicitly incorporated private sector, of $100 million or more services, including alternatives to the current definition of (adjusted annually for inflation) in any institutional extended care that the ‘‘catastrophically disabled’’ in 38 CFR given year. This final rule would have Secretary may furnish directly, by 17.108(d)(11). no such effect on state, local, or Tribal contract, or through provision of case governments, or on the private sector. Administrative Procedure Act management by another provider or Paperwork Reduction Act payer.’’ VA has long defined This final rule incorporates statutory ‘‘noninstitutional’’ as ‘‘a service that provisions or interprets those This final rule does not contain any does not include an overnight stay.’’ We provisions. Therefore, in accordance collections of information under the assume that Congress was aware of with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the provisions Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. these definitions and intended that we of the Administrative Procedure Act 3501–3520). (APA) regarding notice of proposed would interpret section 1730A Regulatory Flexibility Act consistent with them. Accordingly, we rulemaking and opportunities for public interpret section 1730A as exempting participation are not applicable. The Secretary hereby certifies that catastrophically disabled veterans from Further, pursuant to section 553(d)(2), this final rule will not have a significant copayments charged for adult day this final rule is exempt from the APA’s economic impact on a substantial health care, non-institutional geriatric 30-day delayed effective date number of small entities as they are evaluation, and non-institutional respite requirement. defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This rule will not care, as described in current 38 CFR Executive Order 12866 17.111. These are the only extended cause a significant economic impact on care services listed in § 17.111 that do Executive Order 12866 directs health care providers, suppliers, or not require an overnight stay. agencies to assess all costs and benefits entities since only a small portion of the Copayments for all other extended care of available regulatory alternatives and, business of such entities concerns VA services still apply (including Nursing when regulation is necessary, to select beneficiaries. Therefore, pursuant to 5 Home Care). regulatory approaches that maximize U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from We note that VA provides a number net benefits (including potential the initial and final regulatory flexibility of additional extended care services not economic, environmental, public health analysis requirements of §§ 603 and 604. and safety, and other advantages; listed in current 38 CFR 17.111. These Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance distributive impacts; and equity). The services include, homemaker/home Numbers health aide, purchased skilled home Executive Order classifies a regulatory care, home based primary care, and any action as a ‘‘significant regulatory The Catalog of Federal Domestic other noninstitutional alternative action,’’ requiring review by the Office Assistance numbers and titles are extended care services. Despite not of Management and Budget (OMB) 64.009 Veterans Medical Care Benefits, being listed under current § 17.111, the unless OMB waives such review, if it is 64.010 Veterans Nursing Home Care, copayment exemption will apply to a regulatory action that is likely to result and 64.011 Veterans Dental Care. these services because VA considers in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual Signing Authority them ‘‘medical services’’ under the effect on the economy of $100 million definition in section 1701(6)(E). or more or adversely affect in a material The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or Catastrophically disabled veterans will way the economy, a sector of the designee, approved this document and be exempt from copayments for such economy, productivity, competition, authorized the undersigned to sign and services under new § 17.108(d)(11). jobs, the environment, public health or submit the document to the Office of the Current § 17.36(e) defines safety, or state, local, or Tribal Federal Register for publication ‘‘catastrophically disabled’’ to mean ‘‘a governments or communities; (2) create electronically as an official document of permanent severely disabling injury, a serious inconsistency or otherwise the Department of Veterans Affairs. John disorder, or disease that compromises interfere with an action taken or R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department the ability to carry out the activities of planned by another agency; (3) of Veterans Affairs, approved this daily living to such a degree that the materially alter the budgetary impact of document on July 6, 2011, for individual requires personal or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan publication. mechanical assistance to leave home or programs or the rights and obligations of List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 bed or requires constant supervision to recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel Administrative practice and avoid physical harm to self or others.’’ legal or policy issues arising out of legal procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, This is the only definition of the term mandates, the President’s priorities, or Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug in VA’s medical regulations. Although the principles set forth in the Executive abuse, Foreign relations, Government § 17.36(e) applies to enrollment, in Order. contracts, Grant programs-health, section 1730A, Congress prescribed the The economic, interagency, Government programs-veterans, Health exemptions for any catastrophically budgetary, legal, and policy care, Health facilities, Health disabled veteran, ‘‘as defined by the implications of this final rule have been professions, Health records, Homeless, Secretary.’’ We interpret section 1730A examined and it has been determined Medical and dental schools, Medical as requiring application of VA’s current not to be a significant regulatory action devices, Medical research, Mental regulation defining the term. We note under Executive Order 12866. that there is no legislative history health programs, Nursing home care, suggesting that Congress intended a Unfunded Mandates Veterans. different definition of the term for The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Dated: August 16, 2011. purposes of copayment exemptions. of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that Robert C. McFetridge, Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that agencies prepare an assessment of Director of Regulation Policy and Congress intended to liberalize the anticipated costs and benefits before Management, Office of the General Counsel, benefits for certain veterans enrolled by issuing any rule that may result in Department of Veterans Affairs. VA under § 17.36(e). Thus, consistent expenditure by state, local, or Tribal For the reasons stated in the with our interpretation of section governments, in the aggregate, or by the preamble, the Department of Veterans

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52274 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as each paragraph and adding, in each veteran residents of the home are follows: place a period. spouses of veterans or parents of ■ b. In paragraph (f)(6), removing ‘‘; or’’ veterans all of whose children died PART 17—MEDICAL and adding, in its place, a period. while serving in the Armed Forces of ■ c. Adding paragraph (f)(8). the United States. In Public Law 111– ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 17 The addition reads as follows: 246, Congress mandated that VA continues to read as follows: administer § 51.210(d) to permit a State Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in § 17.111 Copayments for extended care home to provide services to ‘‘a non- specific sections. services. veteran any of whose children died * * * * * ■ 2. Amend § 17.36 by: while serving in the Armed Forces.’’ (f) * * * ■ a. In paragraph (a)(3), removing ‘‘, or This final rule implements Public Law (8) A veteran who VA determines to any’’ and adding, in its place, ‘‘(the 111–246 by amending § 51.210(d) to be catastrophically disabled, as defined period between August 2, 1990, and incorporate the language mandated by in 38 CFR 17.36(e), is exempt from November 11, 1998), or any’’. Congress. As amended, § 51.210(d) ■ b. In paragraph (b)(3), removing copayments for adult day health care, allows States to admit parents, ‘‘any’’ of ‘‘Purple Heart’’ and adding, in its place, non-institutional respite care, and non- whose children died while serving in ‘‘Medal of Honor or Purple Heart’’. institutional geriatric care. the Armed Forces, to State homes ■ c. In paragraph (b)(6), removing ‘‘, or * * * * * without affecting VA per diem for any’’ and adding, in its place, ‘‘(the [FR Doc. 2011–21291 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] payments to States for care provided to period between August 2, 1990, and BILLING CODE 8320–01–P veterans. November 11, 1998), or for any’’. Effect of Rulemaking ■ 3. Amend § 17.108 by: ■ a. In paragraphs (d)(1) through (8), DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, removing the semicolons at the end of AFFAIRS as revised by this final rule, represents each paragraph and adding, in each VA’s implementation of its exclusive place, a period. 38 CFR Part 51 legal authority on this subject. Other ■ than future amendments to this b. In paragraph (d)(9), removing ‘‘; or’’ RIN 2900–AN96 at the end of the paragraph and adding, regulation or governing statute or public in its place, a period; Expansion of State Home Care for law, no contrary rules or procedures are ■ c. Adding paragraph (d)(11). Parents of a Child Who Died While authorized. All existing or subsequent ■ d. Revising the authority citation at Serving in the Armed Forces VA guidance must be read to conform the end of the section. with this rulemaking if possible or, if The addition and revision read as AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. not possible, such guidance is follows: ACTION: Final rule. superseded by this rulemaking. Administrative Procedure Act § 17.108 Copayments for inpatient hospital SUMMARY: This document amends care and outpatient medical care. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) These amendments incorporate a * * * * * regulations concerning the payment of specific program requirement mandated (d) * * * per diem to a State for providing by Congress. Accordingly, this rule is (11) A veteran who VA determines to nursing home care to eligible veterans. exempt from the prior notice-and- be catastrophically disabled, as defined The amendments remove a restriction comment and delayed-effective-date in 38 CFR 17.36(e). on VA’s payment of per diem, which requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. * * * * * required all non-veteran residents of a Executive Order 12866 (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1710, 1730A) State home to be spouses of veterans, or parents of veterans all of whose children Executive Order 12866 directs ■ 4. Amend § 17.110 by: died while serving in the Armed Forces agencies to assess all costs and benefits ■ a. In paragraphs (c)(1) through (6), of the United States. Under this final of available regulatory alternatives and, removing the semicolons at the end of rule, non-veteran residents of the State when regulation is necessary, to select each paragraph and adding, in each home must be spouses of veterans, or regulatory approaches that maximize place, a period. parents of veterans any of whose net benefits (including potential ■ b. In paragraph (c)(7), removing ‘‘; children died while serving in the economic, environmental, public health and’’ and adding, in its place, a period. Armed Forces. and safety, and other advantages; ■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(9). distributive impacts; and equity). The ■ d. Revising the authority citation at DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is Executive Order classifies a regulatory the end of the section. effective August 22, 2011. action as a ‘‘significant regulatory The addition and revision read as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: action,’’ requiring review by the Office follows: Nancy Quest, Chief, State Veterans of Management and Budget (OMB) Home Clinical & Survey Oversight, § 17.110 Copayments for medication. unless OMB waives such review, if it is Geriatrics and Extended Care Services a regulatory action that is likely to result * * * * * (114), Veterans Health Administration, in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual (c) * * * Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 (9) A veteran who VA determines to effect on the economy of $100 million Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC be catastrophically disabled, as defined or more or adversely affect in a material 20420, (202) 461–6064. (This is not a in 38 CFR 17.36(e). way the economy, a sector of the toll free number.) economy, productivity, competition, (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1710, 1720D, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under jobs, the environment, public health or 1722A, 1730A) current 38 CFR 51.210(d), VA pays per safety, or State, local, or Tribal ■ 5. Amend § 17.111 by: diem to a State for providing nursing governments or communities; (2) create ■ a. In paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5), home care to eligible veterans in a State a serious inconsistency or otherwise removing the semicolons at the end of home if, among other things, all non- interfere with an action taken or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52275

planned by another agency; (3) of State Home Facilities; 64.009, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION materially alter the budgetary impact of Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, AGENCY entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.015, programs or the rights and obligations of Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 40 CFR Part 52 recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical [EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0195; FRL–9453–6] legal or policy issues arising out of legal Resources; 64.019. mandates, the President’s priorities, or Approval and Promulgation of Air Signing Authority the principles set forth in the Executive Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Order. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or Revisions to Clean Air Interstate Rule The economic, interagency, designee, approved this document and Emissions Trading Program budgetary, legal, and policy authorized the undersigned to sign and implications of this final rule have been AGENCY: Environmental Protection submit the document to the Office of the Agency (EPA). examined and it has been determined Federal Register for publication ACTION: not to be a significant regulatory action electronically as an official document of Final rule. under Executive Order 12866. the Department of Veterans Affairs. John SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Unfunded Mandates R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department Implementation Plan (SIP) revision The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Veterans Affairs, approved this submitted by the Commonwealth of of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that document on July 7, 2011, for Virginia. The revision, which amends agencies prepare an assessment of publication. the Virginia Clean Air Interstate Rule anticipated costs and benefits before List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 51 (CAIR) trading program, is comprised of issuing any rule that may result in technical corrections and revisions to expenditure by State, local, or Tribal Administrative practice and the definition of a cogeneration unit to governments, in the aggregate, or by the procedure, Claims, Government ensure the Commonwealth’s CAIR private sector, of $100 million or more contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant trading program is consistent with (adjusted annually for inflation) in any programs-veterans, Health care, Health federal CAIR requirements. This action given year. This final rule would have facilities, Health professions, Health is being taken under the Clean Air Act no such effect on State, local, or Tribal records, Mental health programs, (CAA). governments, or on the private sector. Nursing homes, Reporting and DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is recordkeeping requirements, Travel and effective on September 21, 2011. Paperwork Reduction Act transportation expenses, Veterans. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a This document contains no provisions Dated: August 16, 2011. docket for this action under Docket ID constituting a collection of information Robert C. McFetridge, Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0195. All under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 documents in the docket are listed in U.S.C. 3501–3520). Director of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the General Counsel, the http://www.regulations.gov Web Regulatory Flexibility Act Department of Veterans Affairs. site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly The initial and final regulatory For the reasons stated in the available, i.e., confidential business flexibility analyses requirements of preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 51 as information (CBI) or other information section 603 and 604 of the Regulatory follows: whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, are Certain other material, such as not applicable to this rule because a PART 51—PER DIEM FOR NURSING copyrighted material, is not placed on notice of proposed rulemaking is not HOME CARE OF VETERANS IN STATE the Internet and will be publicly required for this rule. Even so, the HOMES available only in hard copy form. Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby Publicly available docket materials are certifies that this final rule will not have ■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 available either electronically through a significant economic impact on a continues to read as follows: http://www.regulations.gov or in hard substantial number of small entities as copy for public inspection during they are defined in the Regulatory Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741– normal business hours at the Air Flexibility Act. The State homes 1743, 1745. Protection Division, U.S. Environmental referenced in this final rule are State ■ 2. Amend § 51.210 by: Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 government entities under the control of ■ a. In paragraph (d), removing ‘‘or Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania State governments. All State homes are parents all of whose children died while 19103. Copies of the State submittal are owned, operated and managed by State serving in the armed forces’’ and available at the Virginia Department of governments except for a small number adding, in its place, ‘‘, or parents any of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main that are operated by entities under whose children died while serving in Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. contract with State governments. These the Armed Forces’’. contractors are not small entities. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Therefore, this final rule is also exempt, ■ b. Revising the authority citation at Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2308, or by pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), from the the end of the section. e-mail at [email protected]. initial and final regulatory flexibility The revision reads as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: analysis requirements of sections 603 Throughout this document, whenever and 604. § 51.210 Administration. ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean * * * * * EPA. On September 27, 2010, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Commonwealth of Virginia Department Numbers (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741– of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) The Catalog of Federal Domestic 1743, 8135; Pub. L. 111–246) submitted a revision to its SIP, Assistance numbers and titles are [FR Doc. 2011–21292 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] including technical corrections and 64.005, Grants to States for Construction BILLING CODE 8320–01–P revisions to the definition of a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52276 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

cogeneration unit to ensure the III. General Information Pertaining to imposed by Federal law,’’ any person Commonwealth’s CAIR trading program SIP Submittals From the making a voluntary disclosure of is consistent with Federal CAIR Commonwealth of Virginia information to a state agency regarding requirements. In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative I. Background that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental order is granted immunity from EPA approved Virginia’s CAIR trading assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for administrative or civil penalty. The program on December 28, 2007 (72 FR voluntary compliance evaluations Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 73602). In the notice of proposed performed by a regulated entity. The opinion states that the quoted language rulemaking (NPR) for Virginia’s CAIR legislation further addresses the relative renders this statute inapplicable to trading program (72 FR 54385, burden of proof for parties either enforcement of any Federally authorized September 25, 2007), EPA noted that it asserting the privilege or seeking programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be believed that Virginia clearly intended disclosure of documents for which the afforded from administrative, civil, or to replace the CAIR Federal privilege is claimed. Virginia’s criminal penalties because granting Implementation Plan (FIP) with a State legislation also provides, subject to such immunity would not be consistent plan based on the CAIR model rule that certain conditions, for a penalty waiver with Federal law, which is one of the would allow subject sources to for violations of environmental laws criteria for immunity.’’ participate in the EPA-administered when a regulated entity discovers such Therefore, EPA has determined that regional CAIR trading program. violations pursuant to a voluntary Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity However, EPA also noted that there compliance evaluation and voluntarily statutes will not preclude the were some provisions of Virginia CAIR discloses such violations to the Commonwealth from enforcing its regulations 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140, Parts Commonwealth and takes prompt and program consistent with the Federal II, III, and IV that could be interpreted appropriate measures to remedy the requirements. In any event, because in a way that might be inconsistent with violations. Virginia’s Voluntary EPA has also determined that a state the Commonwealth’s intent. EPA Environmental Assessment Privilege audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot determined that VADEQ’s Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides have any impact on Federal interpretations of these provisions, a privilege that protects from disclosure enforcement authorities, EPA may at provided in its letter dated September documents and information about the any time invoke its authority under the 12, 2007, clarified the language of the content of those documents that are the CAA, including, for example, sections Virginia regulations and were consistent product of a voluntary environmental 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the with having the EPA-administered CAIR assessment. The Privilege Law does not requirements or prohibitions of the state trading program become effective in extend to documents or information (1) plan, independently of any state Virginia. However EPA recommended, That are generated or developed before enforcement effort. In addition, citizen and VADEQ agreed to, promulgation of the commencement of a voluntary enforcement under section 304 of the clarifying amendments to these environmental assessment; (2) that are CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or provisions at the Commonwealth of prepared independently of the any, state audit privilege or immunity Virginia’s earliest opportunity. assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial law. Also, in a rulemaking dated October danger to the public health or IV. Final Action 19, 2007 (72 FR 59190), EPA changed environment; or (4) that are required by the definition of ‘‘cogeneration unit’’ in law. EPA is approving the Virginia CAIR CAIR, the CAIR model cap and trade On January 12, 1998, the revisions submitted on September 27, rule, and the CAIR FIP with respect to Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 2010 as a revision to the Virginia SIP. the calculation methodology for the Attorney General provided a legal The revisions are consistent with CAIR efficiency standard of a cogeneration opinion that states that the Privilege requirements. unit, therefore Virginia was required to law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes A. General Requirements modify its CAIR SIP to be consistent granting a privilege to documents and with the revised Federal definition. information ‘‘required by law,’’ Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission II. Summary of SIP Revision including documents and information Arequired by Federal law to maintain that complies with the provisions of the On September 27, 2010, VADEQ program delegation, authorization or CAA and applicable Federal regulations. submitted a SIP revision that amended approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Virginia’s CAIR regulations. The SIP Federally authorized environmental Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, revision incorporates the clarifying programs in a manner that is no less EPA’s role is to approve state choices, revisions specified in the September 25, stringent than their Federal counterparts provided that they meet the criteria of 2007 NPR proposing approval of * * * .’’ The opinion concludes that the CAA. Accordingly, this action Virginia’s CAIR regulations and the ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, merely approves state law as meeting changes to the definition of documents or other information needed Federal requirements and does not ‘‘cogeneration unit’’ made in EPA’s for civil or criminal enforcement under impose additional requirements beyond revised CAIR rulemaking dated October one of these programs could not be those imposed by state law. For that 19, 2007. On May 26, 2011 (76 FR privileged because such documents and reason, this action: 30600), the NPR was published for information are essential to pursuing • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory public comment. Other specific enforcement in a manner required by action’’ subject to review by the Office requirements and the rationale for EPA’s Federal law to maintain program of Management and Budget under proposed action are explained in the delegation, authorization or approval.’’ Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, NPR and will not be restated here. No Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code October 4, 1993); public comments were received on the Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the • Does not impose an information NPR. extent consistent with requirements collection burden under the provisions

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52277

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 not approved to apply in Indian country for judicial review may be filed, and U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); located in the state, and EPA notes that shall not postpone the effectiveness of • Is certified as not having a it will not impose substantial direct such rule or action. This action significant economic impact on a costs on tribal governments or preempt approving revisions to Virginia’s CAIR substantial number of small entities tribal law. trading program may not be challenged under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 B. Submission to Congress and the later in proceedings to enforce its U.S.C. 601 et seq.); requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) • Does not contain any unfunded Comptroller General mandate or significantly or uniquely The Congressional Review Act, 5 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 affect small governments, as described U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Environmental protection, Air in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Business Regulatory Enforcement pollution control, Incorporation by of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides • reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Does not have Federalism that before a rule may take effect, the Particulate matter, Reporting and implications as specified in Executive agency promulgating the rule must recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, submit a rule report, which includes a oxides. 1999); copy of the rule, to each House of the • Is not an economically significant Congress and to the Comptroller General Dated: August 3, 2011. regulatory action based on health or of the United States. EPA will submit a W. C. Early, safety risks subject to Executive Order report containing this action and other Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); required information to the U.S. Senate, • Is not a significant regulatory action the U.S. House of Representatives, and 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR the Comptroller General of the United PART 52—[AMENDED] 28355, May 22, 2001); States prior to publication of the rule in • Is not subject to requirements of the Federal Register. A major rule ■ Section 12(d) of the National cannot take effect until 60 days after it 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR Technology Transfer and Advancement is published in the Federal Register. part 52 continues to read as follows: Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. application of those requirements would defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). be inconsistent with the CAA; and Subpart VV—Virginia • Does not provide EPA with the C. Petitions for Judicial Review discretionary authority to address, as Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, ■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph appropriate, disproportionate human petitions for judicial review of this (c) is amended by revising the entries health or environmental effects, using action must be filed in the United States for Chapter 140, Sections 5–140–1010, practicable and legally permissible Court of Appeals for the appropriate 5–140–1020, 5–140–1060, 5–140–2010, methods, under Executive Order 12898 circuit by October 21, 2011. Filing a 5–140–2020, 5–140–3010, and 5–140– (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). petition for reconsideration by the 3020 to read as follows: In addition, this rule does not have Administrator of this final rule does not tribal implications as specified by affect the finality of this action for the § 52.2420 Identification of plan. Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, purposes of judicial review nor does it * * * * * November 9, 2000), because the SIP is extend the time within which a petition (c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State Explanation State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval date [former SIP date citation]

******* 9 VAC 5, Chapter 140 Regulation for Emissions Trading

******* Part II NOX Annual Trading Program

Article 1 CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program General Provisions

5–140–1010 ...... Purpose and Authority ...... 3/18/09 8/22/11 [Insert page number where the document begins] 5–140–1020 ...... Definitions ...... 3/18/09 8/22/11 [Insert page number where the document begins]

******* 5–140–1060 ...... Standard Requirements .... 3/18/09 8/22/11 [Insert page number where the document begins]

******* Part III NOX Ozone Season Trading Program

Article 1 CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program General Provisions. 5–140–2010 ...... Purpose and Authority ...... 3/18/09 8/22/11 [Insert page number where the document begins]

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52278 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued

State Explanation State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval date [former SIP date citation]

5–140–2020 ...... Definitions ...... 3/18/09 8/22/11 [Insert page number where the document begins]

******* Part IV SO2 Annual Trading Program

Article 1 CAIR SO2 Trading Program General Provisions 5–140–3010 ...... Purpose and Authority ...... 3/18/09 8/22/11 [Insert page number where the document begins] 5–140–3020 ...... Definitions ...... 3/18/09 8/22/11 [Insert page number where the document begins]

*******

* * * * * Avenue, N.W., Room Number 3334, A. Added Regulations [FR Doc. 2011–21267 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] EPA West Building, Washington, DC BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 20460; or the National Archives and 1. COMAR 26.11.10 (Control of Iron Records Administration (NARA). For and Steel Production Installations), information on the availability of this regulation .05—1 (Control of Carbon EVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, Monoxide Emissions from Basic Oxygen Furnaces). AGENCY or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ _ 2. COMAR 26.11.19 (Volatile Organic 40 CFR Part 52 federal register/ code_of_federal_regulations/ Compounds from Specific Processes), [MD203–3119; FRL–9454–1] ibr_locations.html. regulations .09–1 (Control of VOC Emissions from Industrial Solvent Approval and Promulgation of Air FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cleaning Operations Other Than Cold Quality Implementation Plans; Harold A. Frankford, (215) 814–2108 or and Vapor Degreasing), .10–1 (Flexible Maryland; Update to Materials by e-mail at [email protected]. Packaging Printing), and .33 (Control of Incorporated by Reference Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: from Flat wood Paneling Coatings). AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I. Background 3. COMAR 26.11.28 (Clean Air Interstate Rule)—all regulations (.01 ACTION: Final rule; administrative The SIP is a living document which through .08). change. the State revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. B. Revised Regulations SUMMARY: EPA is updating the materials Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must submitted by Maryland that are take action on SIP revisions containing 1. COMAR 26.11.01.01 (General incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Administrative Provisions— Maryland State Implementation Plan new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR Definitions), section .01B(17) (definition (SIP). The regulations affected by this of ‘‘fuel burning equipment’’). update have been previously submitted 27968), EPA revised the procedures for 2. COMAR 26.11.09 (Control of Fuel by the Maryland Department of the incorporating by reference Federally- Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Environment (MDE) and approved by approved SIPs, as a result of Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel- EPA. This update affects the SIP consultations between EPA and the Burning Installations), regulation .01B materials that are available for public Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The (removal of the definition of ‘‘fuel inspection at the National Archives and description of the revised SIP burning equipment’’). Records Administration (NARA), the document, IBR procedures and Air and Radiation Docket and ‘‘Identification of plan’’ format are 3. COMAR 26.11.19 (Volatile Organic Information Center located at EPA discussed in further detail in the May Compounds from Specific Processes), Headquarters in Washington, DC, and 22, 1997 Federal Register document. On regulations .06 (Large Appliance the EPA Regional Office. November 1, 2004 (69 FR 69304), EPA Coating), .07 (Paper, Fabric, Film, Foil, DATES: Effective Date: This action is published a document in the Federal Vinyl, and Other Plastic Parts Coating), effective August 22, 2011. Register beginning the new IBR and .10 (Flexographic and Rotogravure procedure for Maryland. On February 2, Printing). ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are 2006 (71 FR 5607), May 18, 2007 (72 FR incorporated by reference into 40 CFR C. Removed Regulations part 52 are available for inspection at 27957), March 11, 2008 (73 FR 12895), the following locations: Air Protection and March 19, 2009 (74 FR 11647), EPA COMAR 26.11.10 (Control of Iron and Division, U.S. Environmental Protection published updates to the IBR material Steel Production Installations), Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, for Maryland. Regulation .06[2] (Carbon Monoxide). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Since the publication of the last IBR II. EPA Action Air and Radiation Docket and update, EPA has approved the following Information Center, U.S. Environmental regulatory changes to the following In this action, EPA is doing the Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Maryland regulations: following:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52279

A. In Paragraph 52.1070(b) where procedures are ‘‘impractical, methods, under Executive Order 12898 Announcing the update to the IBR unnecessary, or contrary to the public (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). material as of August 1, 2011. interest.’’ Public comment is In addition, this rule does not have ‘‘unnecessary’’ and ‘‘contrary to the Tribal implications as specified by B. In Paragraph 40 CFR 52.1070(c) public interest’’ since the codification Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 1. Removing the entry for COMAR only reflects existing law. Immediate November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 26.11.10.06[1], and replacing it with an notice in the CFR benefits the public by not approved to apply in Indian country entry for COMAR 26.11.10.06. removing outdated citations and located in the state, and EPA notes that incorrect table entries. 2. Correcting a typographical error in it will not impose substantial direct the title heading entry for COMAR III. Statutory and Executive Order costs on Tribal governments or preempt 26.11.09. Reviews Tribal law. 3. Correcting typographical errors in the ‘‘Title/subject’’ column for the A. General Requirements B. Submission to Congress and the following entries: COMAR 26.11.19.07, Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Comptroller General 26.11.19.07–1, 26.11.19.09, 26.11.19.24, Administrator is required to approve a The Congressional Review Act, 5 26.11.29.11, and 11.14.08.22. SIP submission that complies with the U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 4. Correcting the date format in the provisions of the CAA and applicable Business Regulatory Enforcement ‘‘State effective date’’ column for the Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides following entries: COMAR 26.11.24.04, 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP that before a rule may take effect, the and all 26 entries in COMAR 26.11.32. submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 5. Correcting the text in the agency promulgating the rule must state choices, provided that they meet ‘‘Additional explanation/citation at 40 submit a rule report, which includes a the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, CFR 52.1100’’ column for COMAR copy of the rule, to each House of the this action merely approves state law as 26.11.01.01, 26.11.09.01, 26.11.19.10, Congress and to the Comptroller General meeting Federal requirements and does and 26.11.29.09. of the United States. EPA will submit a not impose additional requirements report containing this rule and other C. In Paragraph 52.1070(d) beyond those imposed by state law. For required information to the U.S. Senate, Correcting the date in the ‘‘State that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory the U.S. House of Representatives, and effective date’’ column for the entry the Comptroller General of the United ‘‘Potomac Electric Power Company action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under States prior to publication of the rule in (PEPCO)—Chalk Point Units #1 and the Federal Register. This rule is not a #2.’’ Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. D. In Paragraph 52.1070(e) • Does not impose an information 804(2). Correcting the date format for the collection burden under the provisions C. Petitions for Judicial Review following entries: of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 1. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); EPA has also determined that the Plan—City of Baltimore—Regional • Is certified as not having a provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Planning District 118 (‘‘EPA approval significant economic impact on a CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial date’’ column). substantial number of small entities review are not applicable to this action. 2. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each Plan—Montgomery County Election U.S.C. 601 et seq.); individual component of the Maryland Districts 4, 7, and 13; Prince Georges • Does not contain any unfunded SIP compilations had previously County Election Districts 2, 6, 12, 16, mandate or significantly or uniquely afforded interested parties the 17, and 18 (‘‘EPA approval date’’ affect small governments, as described opportunity to file a petition for judicial column). in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act review in the United States Court of 3. 1-hour Ozone Attainment Plan— of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Appeals for the appropriate circuit Washington DC 1-hour ozone • Does not have Federalism within 60 days of such rulemaking nonattainment area (‘‘State effective implications as specified in Executive action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this date’’ column); and, Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, action to reopen the 60-day period for 4. 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for 1999); filing such petitions for judicial review the Kent and Queen Anne’s Area (‘‘State • Is not an economically significant for this ‘‘Identification of plan’’ update effective date’’ column). regulatory action based on health or action for Maryland. EPA has determined that today’s rule safety risks subject to Executive Order falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the • Is not a significant regulatory action Environmental protection, Air Administrative Procedures Act (APA) subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR pollution control, Carbon monoxide, which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’ 28355, May 22, 2001); authorizes agencies to dispense with • Is not subject to requirements of Incorporation by reference, public participation and section Section 12(d) of the National Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to Technology Transfer and Advancement Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate make a rule effective immediately Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because matter, Reporting and record keeping (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed application of those requirements would requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile effective date otherwise provided for in be inconsistent with the CAA; and organic compounds. the APA). Today’s rule simply codifies • Does not provide EPA with the Dated: August 8, 2011. provisions which are already in effect as discretionary authority to address, as W.C. Early, a matter of law in Federal and approved appropriate, disproportionate human Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. State programs. Under section 553 of the health or environmental effects, using APA, an agency may find good cause practicable and legally permissible 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52280 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

PART 52—[AMENDED] County Election Districts 2, 6, 12, 16, as part of the State implementation plan 17, and 18. as of August 1, 2011. ■ 1. The authority for citation for part 52 iii. 1-hour Ozone Attainment Plan— (ii) EPA Region III certifies that the continues to read as follows: Washington DC 1-hour ozone source-specific requirements provided Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. nonattainment area. by EPA at the addresses in paragraph iv. 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan (b)(3) of this section are an exact Subpart V—Maryland for the Kent and Queen Anne’s Area. duplicate of the officially promulgated source-specific requirements which The amendments read as follows: ■ 2. Section 52.1070 is amended by: have been approved in the notebook ‘‘40 ■ a. Revising paragraph (b). § 52.1070 Identification of plan. CFR 52.1070(d)—Source-Specific ■ Requirements’’ as part of the State b. In paragraph (c), * * * * * ■ i. Revising the entries for COMAR implementation plan as of December 1, 26.11.01.01, 26.11.09 heading, and (b) Incorporation by reference. 2008. No additional revisions were 26.11.09.01. (1) Material listed as incorporated by made since between December 1, 2008 ■ ii. Removing the entry for COMAR reference in paragraphs (c) and (d) was and August 1, 2011. 26.11.10.06[1], and adding an entry for approved for incorporation by reference (3) Copies of the materials COMAR 26.11.10.06 in its place. by the Director of the Federal Register incorporated by reference may be ■ iii. Revising the entries for COMAR in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and inspected at the EPA Region III Office at 26.11.19.07, 26.11.19.07–1, 26.11.19.09, 1 CFR part 51. The material 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 26.11.19.10, 26.11.19.24, 26.11.24.04, incorporated is as it exists on the date 19103. For further information, call 26.11.29.09, 26.11.29.11, 26.11.32.01 of the approval, and notice of any (215) 814–2108; the EPA, Air and through 26.11.32.26 inclusive, and change in the material will be published Radiation Docket and Information 11.14.08.22. in the Federal Register. Entries in Center, Room Number 3334, EPA West ■ c. In paragraph (d), revising the entry paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue for Potomac Electric Power Company with EPA approval dates on or after NW, Washington, DC 20460. For further (PEPCO)—Chalk Point Units #1 and #2. August 1, 2011 will be incorporated by information, call (202) 566–1742; or at ■ d. In paragraph (e), revising the entries reference in the next update to the SIP the National Archives and Records for: compilation. Administration (NARA). For i. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance (2)(i) EPA Region III certifies that the information on the availability of this Plan—City of Baltimore—Regional rules and regulations provided by EPA material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, Planning District 118. at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ ii. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance this section are an exact duplicate of the federal_register/code_of_federal_ Plan—Montgomery County Election officially promulgated State rules and regulations/ibr_locations.html. Districts 4, 7, and 13; Prince Georges regulations which have been approved (c) EPA-approved regulations.

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP

Code of Maryland administrative State effective Additional explanation/cita- regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject date EPA approval date tion at 40 CFR § 52.1100

26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions

26.11.01.01 ...... Definitions ...... 9/20/10 2/22/11 76 FR 9650 ...... 1. Exceptions: Paragraphs .01B(3), (13), (21) through (23), (25); all of section .01C. 2. Revi- sion to paragraph .01B(17). The SIP effective date is 4/25/11.

*******

26.11.09 Control of Fuel Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burn- ing Installations

26.11.09.01 ...... Definitions ...... 9/20/10 2/22/11 76 FR 9650 ...... Revision removes definition of ‘‘fuel-burning equipment.’’ The SIP effective date is 4/25/11.

*******

26.11.10 Control of Iron and Steel Production Installations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52281

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP—Continued

Code of Maryland administrative State effective Additional explanation/cita- regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject date EPA approval date tion at 40 CFR § 52.1100

******* 26.11.10.06 ...... Control of Volatile Organic Com- 12/25/00 11/7/01 66 FR 56222 ...... (c)(163). pounds from Iron and Steel Production Installations.

*******

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

*******

26.11.19.07 ...... Paper, Fabric, Film, Foil, Vinyl, 4/19/10 9/27/10 75 FR 59084 ...... Revisions to Section .07A, and Other Plastic Parts Coat- .07B and the addition of ing. new Section .07D. 26.11.19.07–1 ...... Control of VOC Emissions from 6/15/98 6/17/99 64 FR 32415 ...... (c)(142). Solid Resin Decorative Surface Manufacturing.

*******

26.11.19.09 ...... Control of Volatile Organic Com- 6/5/95 8/4/97 62 FR 41853 ...... (c)(123). pounds (VOC) Emissions from Cold and Vapor Degreasing. 26.11.19.10 ...... Flexographic and Rotogravure 4/19/10 9/27/10 75 FR 59086 ...... Revision to section Printing. .10B(2).

******* 26.11.19.24 ...... Control of VOC Emissions from 8/11/97 9/23/99 64 FR 41445 ...... (c)(137). Leather Coating.

*******

26.11.24 Stage II Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

******* 26.11.24.04 ...... Testing Requirements ...... 2/28/05 5/8/06 71 FR 26688 ......

*******

26.11.29 NOX Reduction and Trading Program

******* 26.11.29.09 ...... Requirements for New Sources 11/24/03 3/22/04 69 FR 13236 ...... (c)(186)(i)(C)(1)–(5). and Set-Aside Pool.

******* 26.11.29.11 ...... Record Keeping ...... 5/1/00 1/10/01 66 FR 1866 ...... (c)(154)(i)(B)(1).

*******

26.11.32 Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products

26.11.32.01 ...... Applicability and Exemptions ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621. 26.11.32.02 ...... Incorporation by Reference ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621. 26.11.32.03 ...... Definitions ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621. 26.11.32.04 ...... Standards—General ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621. 26.11.32.05 ...... Standards—Requirements for 8/18/03 12/09/03 68 FR 68523 ..... (c)(185). Charcoal Lighter Materials. 26.11.32.06 ...... Standards—Requirements for 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621. Aerosol Adhesives.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP—Continued

Code of Maryland administrative State effective Additional explanation/cita- regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject date EPA approval date tion at 40 CFR § 52.1100

26.11.32.07 ...... Standards—Requirements for 8/18/03 12/09/03 68 FR 68523 ..... (c)(185). Floor Wax Strippers. 26.11.32.08 ...... Requirements for Contact Adhe- 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... New Regulation. sives, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear, or Leather Care Products, and General Pur- pose Cleaners. 26.11.32.09 ...... Requirements for Adhesive Re- 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... New Regulation. movers, Electrical Cleaners, and Graffiti Removers. 26.11.32.10 ...... Requirements for Solid Air Fresh- 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... New Regulation. eners and Toilet and Urinal Care Products. 26.11.32.11 ...... Innovative Products—CARB Ex- 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing emption. Regulation .08. 26.11.32.12 ...... Innovative Products—Department 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621. Exemption. 26.11.32.13 ...... Administrative Requirements ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .10; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.14 ...... Reporting Requirements ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .11; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.15 ...... Variances ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .12; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.16 ...... Test Methods ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .13; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.17 ...... Alternative Control Plan (ACP) .... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .14; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.18 ...... Approval of an ACP Application .. 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .15; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.19 ...... Record Keeping and Availability 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing of Requested Information. Regulation .16. 26.11.32.20 ...... Violations ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .17. 26.11.32.21 ...... Surplus Reduction and Surplus 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Trading. Regulation .18; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.22 ...... Limited-use surplus reduction 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing credits for early formulations of Regulation .19; Amend- ACP Products. ed. 26.11.32.23 ...... Reconciliation of Shortfalls ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .20; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.24 ...... Modifications to an ACP ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .21; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.25 ...... Cancellation of an ACP ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .22; Amend- ed. 26.11.32.26 ...... Transfer of an ACP ...... 6/18/07 12/10/07 72 FR 69621 ..... Recodification of existing Regulation .23

*******

11.14.08 Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program

******* 11.14.08.22 ...... Evaporative Test Equipment, Gas 1/2/95 10/29/99 64 FR 58340 ..... (c)(144). Cap Leak Test Equipment and 10/19/98 On-Board Diagnostics Interro- gation Equipment Periodic Quality Assurance Checks.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52283

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP—Continued

Code of Maryland administrative State effective Additional explanation/cita- regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject date EPA approval date tion at 40 CFR § 52.1100

*******

(d) EPA approved state source- specific requirements.

State effective Name of source Permit number/type date EPA approval date Additional explanation

Potomac Electric Power Com- #49352 Amended Consent Order 2/27/78 4/2/79 44 FR 19192 ...... 52.1100(c)(22); FRN re- pany (PEPCO)—Chalk Point published 5/3/79 (44 FR Units #1 and #2. 25840).

*******

(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory material.

Name of non-regulatory SIP State submittal revision Applicable geographic area date EPA approval date Additional explanation

******* Carbon Monoxide Maintenance City of Baltimore—Regional Plan- 9/20/95 10/31/95 60 FR 55321 ..... 52.1100(c)(117). Plan. ning District 118. 7/15/04 4/04/05 70 FR 16958 ...... Revised Carbon Monoxide 7/15/04 Maintenance Plan Base Year Emissions Inven- tory using MOBILE6. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Montgomery County Election Dis- 10/12/95 1/30/96 61 FR 2931 ...... 52.1100(c)(118). Plan. tricts 4, 7, and 13; Prince 3/3/04 4/04/05 70 FR 16958 ...... Revised Carbon Monoxide Georges County Election Dis- Maintenance Plan Base tricts 2, 6, 12, 16, 17, and 18. Year Emissions Inven- tory using MOBILE6.

******* 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan ... Washington DC 1-hour ozone 9/2/03 2/24/04 11/16/05 70 FR 69440. nonattainment area. 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties 5/2/06 5/19/06 12/22/06 71 FR 76920. for the Kent and Queen Anne’s Area.

*******

[FR Doc. 2011–21260 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State BILLING CODE 6560–50–P AGENCY Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 40 CFR Part 52 Pennsylvania. The SIP revisions pertain to the control of nitrogen oxide (NOX) [EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0286; FRL–9453–9] emissions from glass melting furnaces. EPA is approving these revisions to Approval and Promulgation of Air reduce NOX emissions from glass Quality Implementation Plans; melting furnaces in accordance with the Pennsylvania; Control of Nitrogen requirements of the Clean Air Act Oxides Emissions From Glass Melting (CAA). Furnaces DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is AGENCY: Environmental Protection effective on September 21, 2011. Agency (EPA). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a ACTION: Final rule. docket for this action under Docket ID

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52284 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0286. All if the owner or operator complies with provided that they meet the criteria of documents in the docket are listed in the start-up, shutdown and idling the CAA. Accordingly, this action the http://www.regulations.gov Web requirements; (3) emission requirements merely approves state law as meeting site. Although listed in the electronic which provide the owner or operator of Federal requirements and does not docket, some information is not publicly a glass melting furnace to determine impose additional requirements beyond available, i.e., confidential business allowable NOX emissions by those imposed by state law. For that information (CBI) or other information multiplying the tons of glass pulled by reason, this action: whose disclosure is restricted by statute. each furnace; (4) start-up requirements • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Certain other material, such as where the start-up exemption identifies action’’ subject to review by the Office copyrighted material, is not placed on the control technologies or strategies to of Management and Budget under the Internet and will be publicly be used to minimize emissions; (5) Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, available only in hard copy form. shutdown requirements where the October 4, 1993); Publicly available docket materials are duration as measured from the time the • Does not impose an information available either electronically through furnace operation drops below 25 collection burden under the provisions http://www.regulations.gov or in hard percent of the permitted production of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 copy for public inspection during capacity or fuel use capacity to when all U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); normal business hours at the Air emissions from the furnace cease, will • Is certified as not having a Protection Division, U.S. Environmental not exceed 20 days; (6) idling significant economic impact on a Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 requirements that provide the owner or substantial number of small entities Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania operator operate the emission control under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 19103. Copies of the State submittal are system whenever technologically U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • available at the Pennsylvania feasible during idling to minimize Does not contain any unfunded Department of Environmental emissions; (7) compliance mandate or significantly or uniquely Protection, Bureau of Air Quality determination by installing, operating affect small governments, as described Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market and maintaining continuous emissions in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. monitoring systems (CEMS); (8) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose compliance demonstration on a furnace- implications as specified in Executive Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at by-furnace basis, facility-wide emissions Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, [email protected]. averaging basis, or a system-wide 1999); SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: emissions averaging basis among glass • melting furnaces; and (9) reporting and Is not an economically significant I. Background recordkeeping requirements where the regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order On June 10, 2011 (76 FR 34021), EPA owner or operator calculates and reports the CEMS data and glass production 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); published a notice of proposed • Is not a significant regulatory action data used to show compliance with the rulemaking (NPR) for the subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR allowable NO emissions limitations on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The X 28355, May 22, 2001); a quarterly basis no later than 30 days NPR proposed approval for the control • Is not subject to requirements of after the end of the quarter. of NOX emissions from glass melting Section 12(d) of the National Other specific requirements for the furnaces. The formal SIP revision was Technology Transfer and Advancement control of NO emissions from glass submitted by the Pennsylvania X Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because melting furnaces and the rationale for Department of the Environmental application of those requirements would EPA’s proposed action are explained in Protection (PADEP) on July 23, 2010. be inconsistent with the CAA; and the NPR and will not be restated here. • Does not provide EPA with the II. Summary of SIP Revision No public comments were received on discretionary authority to address, as the NPR. The SIP revision adds definitions and appropriate, disproportionate human terms to Title 25 of the Pennsylvania III. Final Action health or environmental effects, using Code (25 Pa. Code) Chapter 121.1, EPA is approving 25 Pa. Code Chapter practicable and legally permissible relating to definitions, used in the methods, under Executive Order 12898 substantive provision of this SIP 121.1, relating to definitions used in the substantive provision of this SIP (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). revision. In addition, the SIP revision In addition, this rule does not have revision and the new regulation adds a new regulation pertaining to the Tribal implications as specified by pertaining to the NOX standards in 25 NOX emission standards in 25 Pa. Code Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Pa. Code Chapter 129 (Standards for Chapter 129 (Standard of Sources) November 9, 2000), because the SIP is Sources)—Control of NO Emissions sections 129.301 through 129.310 X not approved to apply in Indian country from Glass Melting Furnaces (sections (Control of NOX Emissions from Glass located in the state, and EPA notes that 129.301 through 129.310) as revisions to Melting Furnaces). The new regulation it will not impose substantial direct the Pennsylvania SIP. applies to an owner or operator of a costs on Tribal governments or preempt glass melting furnace that emits or has IV. Statutory and Executive Order Tribal law. the potential to emit NOX at a rate Reviews greater than 50 tons per year in the B. Submission to Congress and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, A. General Requirements Comptroller General including the local air pollution control Under the CAA, the Administrator is The Congressional Review Act, 5 agencies in Philadelphia and Allegheny required to approve a SIP submission U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Counties. The new regulation consists of that complies with the provisions of the Business Regulatory Enforcement the following: (1) New definitions and CAA and applicable Federal regulations. Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides terms; (2) exemptions that the emission 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). that before a rule may take effect, the requirements do not apply during Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, agency promulgating the rule must periods of start-up, shutdown or idling, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, submit a rule report, which includes a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52285

copy of the rule, to each House of the purposes of judicial review nor does it PART 52—[AMENDED] Congress and to the Comptroller General extend the time within which a petition of the United States. EPA will submit a for judicial review may be filed, and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 report containing this action and other shall not postpone the effectiveness of continues to read as follows: required information to the U.S. Senate, such rule or action. the U.S. House of Representatives, and This action, pertaining to Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. the Comptroller General of the United Pennsylvania’s control of NOX States prior to publication of the rule in emissions from glass melting furnaces Subpart NN—Pennsylvania the Federal Register. A major rule may not be challenged later in cannot take effect until 60 days after it proceedings to enforce its requirements. ■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph is published in the Federal Register. (See section 307(b)(2).) (c)(1) is amended by: This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as ■ a. Revising the entry for Section 121.1. defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air ■ b. Adding entries for Sections 129.301 C. Petitions for Judicial Review pollution control, Incorporation by through 129.310. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, The amendments read as follows: petitions for judicial review of this Particulate matter, Reporting and action must be filed in the United States recordkeeping requirements. § 52.2020 Identification of plan. Court of Appeals for the appropriate Dated: August 8, 2011. * * * * * circuit by October 21, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the W.C. Early, (c) * * * Administrator of this final rule does not Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. (1) * * * affect the finality of this action for the 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

State effec- State citation Title/subject tive date EPA approval date Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 citation

Title 25—Environmental Protection Article III—Air Resources Chapter 121—General Provisions

Section 121.1 ...... Definitions ...... 12/18/10 8/22/11 [Insert page Added new definitions and terms. The State ef- number where the fective date is 6/19/10. document begins].

*******

Chapter 129—Standard for Sources

*******

Additional NOX Requirements

*******

Control of NOX Emissions From Glass Melting Furnaces

Section 129.301 ...... Purpose ...... 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section number where the document begins]. Section 129.302 ...... Applicability ...... 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section number where the document begins]. Section 129.303 ...... Exemptions ...... 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section number where the document begins]. Section 129.304 ...... Emission requirements 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section number where the document begins]. Section 129.305 ...... Start-up requirements ... 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section number where the document begins]. Section 129.306 ...... Shutdown requirements 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section number where the document begins]. Section 129.307 ...... Idling requirements ...... 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section number where the document begins]. Section 129.308 ...... Compliance determina- 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section tion. number where the document begins].

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52286 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

State effec- State citation Title/subject tive date EPA approval date Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 citation

Section 129.309 ...... Compliance demonstra- 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section tion. number where the document begins]. Section 129.310 ...... Recordkeeping ...... 6/19/10 8/22/11 [Insert page New section number where the document begins].

*******

* * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: quota has been harvested and that no [FR Doc. 2011–21262 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Carly Knoell, (978) 281–9224, or commercial quota for the spiny dogfish BILLING CODE 6560–50–P [email protected]. fishery is available. Therefore, effective SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 0001 hr local time, August 26, 2011, Regulations governing the spiny dogfish landings of spiny dogfish in coastal DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648, states from Maine through Florida by subpart L. The regulations require vessels holding commercial Federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric annual specification of a commercial fisheries permits will be prohibited Administration quota, which is allocated into two quota through October 31, 2011, 2400 hr local periods based upon percentages time. The 2011 Period 2 quota will be 50 CFR Part 648 specified in the fishery management available for commercial spiny dogfish harvest on November 1, 2011. Effective [Docket No. 110303179–1290–02] plan. The fishery is managed from Maine through Florida, as described in August 26, 2011, federally permitted RIN 0648–XA632 § 648.230. dealers are also advised that they may The initial total commercial quota for not purchase spiny dogfish from vessels Fisheries of the Northeastern United spiny dogfish for the 2011 fishing year issued Federal spiny dogfish permits States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; is 20 million lb (9,071.85 mt) (76 FR that land in coastal states from Maine Commercial Period 1 Quota Harvested 32874, June 7, 2011). The commercial through Florida. quota is allocated into two periods (May AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Classification 1 through October 31, and November 1 Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and through April 30). Vessel possession This action is required by 50 CFR part Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), limits are set at 3,000 lb (1.36 mt) per 648 and is exempt from review under Commerce. trip for both Quota Periods 1 and 2. Executive Order 12866. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure of Quota Period 1 is allocated 11,580,000 The Assistant Administrator for spiny dogfish fishery. lb (5,252.6 mt), and Quota Period 2 is Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause allocated 8,420,000 lb (3,819.25 mt) of pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the prior notice and the opportunity for spiny dogfish commercial quota the commercial quota. The total quota public comment because it would be available to the coastal states from cannot be exceeded, so landings in contrary to the public interest. This Maine through Florida for the first semi- excess of the amount allocated to Period action closes the spiny dogfish fishery annual quota period, May 1, 2011– 1 have the effect of reducing the quota until November 1, 2011, under current October 31, 2011, has been harvested. available to the fishery during Period 2. The Administrator, Northeast Region, regulations. The regulations at § 648.231 Therefore, effective 0001 hours, August NMFS (Regional Administrator), require such action to ensure that spiny 26, 2011, federally permitted spiny monitors the commercial spiny dogfish dogfish vessels do not exceed the 2011 dogfish vessels may not fish for, quota for each quota period and, based Period 1 quota. Data indicating the possess, transfer, or land spiny dogfish upon dealer reports, state data, and spiny dogfish fleet will have landed the until November 1, 2011, when the other available information, determines 2011 Period 1 quota have only recently Period 2 quota becomes available. when the total commercial quota will be become available. If implementation of Regulations governing the spiny dogfish harvested. NMFS is required to publish this closure is delayed to solicit prior fishery require publication of this a notification in the Federal Register public comment, the quota for Period 1 notification to advise the coastal states advising and notifying commercial will be exceeded, thereby undermining from Maine through Florida that the vessels and dealer permit holders that, the conservation objectives of the FMP. quota has been harvested and to advise effective upon a specific date, the The AA further finds, pursuant to 5 vessel permit holders and dealer permit Federal spiny dogfish commercial quota U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive holders that no Federal commercial has been harvested and no Federal the 30-day delayed effectiveness period quota is available for landing spiny commercial quota is available for for the reasons stated above. dogfish in these states. This action is landing spiny dogfish for the remainder necessary to prevent the fishery from Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. of that quota period. exceeding its Period 1 quota and to Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal Dated: August 17, 2011. allow for effective management of this spiny dogfish permit holders agree, as a Galen R. Tromble, stock. condition of the permit, not to land Acting Director, Office of Sustainable DATES: Effective at 0001 hr local time, spiny dogfish in any state after NMFS Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. August 26, 2011, through 2400 hr local has published notification in the [FR Doc. 2011–21386 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] time October 31, 2011. Federal Register that the commercial BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 52287

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 162

Monday, August 22, 2011

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER According to 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(2) and (3), (5) Solicit, accept, or receive contains notices to the public of the proposed Federal employees may not become uncompensated volunteer services on issuance of rules and regulations. The candidates for partisan political office behalf of an individual who is a purpose of these notices is to give interested and may not solicit, accept, or receive candidate for local partisan political persons an opportunity to participate in the political contributions. Section 7325, office and who represents a political rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. however, authorizes OPM to prescribe party. regulations exempting Federal Under 5 CFR 733.104, however, these employees from the prohibitions in employees may not: OFFICE OF PERSONNEL section 7323(a)(2) and (3) to the extent (1) Run as the representative of a MANAGEMENT OPM considers it to be in their domestic political party for local partisan political interest. office; 5 CFR PART 733 Under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 7325, (2) Solicit a political contribution on OPM may issue such regulatory RIN 3206–AM44 behalf of an individual who is a exemptions when two conditions exist candidate for local partisan political Political Activity—Federal Employees in the municipality or political office and who represents a political Residing In Designated Localities subdivision. One condition is met if the party; municipality or political subdivision is (3) Knowingly solicit a political AGENCY: Office of Personnel in Maryland or Virginia and is in the contribution from any Federal Management. immediate vicinity of the District of employee, except as permitted under 5 ACTION: Proposed rule. Columbia, or if the majority of voters in U.S.C. 7323(a)(2)(A)–(C). the municipality are employed by the (4) Accept or receive a political SUMMARY: OPM proposes to amend its Government of the United States. The contribution from a subordinate; regulations at 5 CFR part 733 by second condition is met if OPM (5) Solicit, accept, or receive granting Federal employees residing in determines that, because of special or uncompensated volunteer services from King George County, Virginia, a partial unusual circumstances, the domestic a subordinate for any political purpose; exemption from the political activity interest of the employees is served by (6) Participate in political activities: restrictions specified in 5 U.S.C. permitting their political participation Æ While they are on duty: 7323(a)(2) and (3), and adding King in accordance with regulations Æ While they are wearing a uniform, George County to its regulatory list of prescribed by OPM. badge, or insignia that identifies the designated localities in 5 CFR In regulations at 5 CFR 733.107(c) employing agency or instrumentality or 733.107(c). The proposed amendment OPM has designated municipalities and the position of the employee; reflects OPM’s determination that King political subdivisions where Federal Æ While they are in any room or George County meets the criteria in 5 employees may participate in local building occupied in the discharge of U.S.C. 7325 and 5 CFR 733.107(a) for a elections. At 5 CFR 733.103–733.106, official duties by an individual partial exemption to issue. OPM has established limitations on employed or holding office in the political participation by most Federal DATES: Written comments must be Government of the United States or any employees residing in these designated received on or before October 21, 2011. agency or instrumentality thereof; or municipalities and subdivisions. Under ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Æ While using a Government-owned 5 CFR 733.103, most Federal employees Elaine Kaplan, General Counsel, Room or leased vehicle or while using a who reside in a municipality or political 7355, United States Office of Personnel privately owned vehicle in the subdivision designated by OPM may: Management, 1900 E Street, NW., discharge of official duties. Washington, DC 20415. (1) Run as independent candidates for election to partisan political office in Moreover, candidacy for, and service in, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo- elections for local office in the a partisan political office shall not result Ann Chabot, Office of the General municipality or political subdivision; in neglect of, or interference with, the Counsel, United States Office of (2) Solicit, accept, or receive a performance of the duties of the Personnel Management, (202) 606–1700. political contribution as, or on behalf of, employee or create a conflict, or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hatch an independent candidate for partisan apparent conflict, of interest. Act, at 5 U.S.C. 7321–7326, governs the political office in elections for local Sections 733.103 and 733.104 of Title political activity of Federal employees, office in the municipality or political 5, Code of Federal Regulations, do not and individuals employed with the subdivision; apply to individuals, such as career United States Postal Service and the (3) Accept or receive a political senior executives and employees of the Government of the District of Columbia. contribution on behalf of an individual Federal Bureau of Investigation, who are Section 7323(a) generally permits who is a candidate for local partisan employed in the agencies or positions Federal employees who are not political office and who represents a listed in 5 CFR 733.105(a). These employed in the Federal agencies or political party; individuals are subject to the more positions described in section 7323(b), (4) Solicit, accept, or receive stringent limitations described in 5 CFR as amended, to take an active part in uncompensated volunteer services as an 733.105 and 733.106. partisan political campaigns. Employees independent candidate, or on behalf of Individuals who require advice employed in the Federal agencies or an independent candidate, for local concerning specific political activities, positions specified in 5 U.S.C. 7323(b), partisan political office, in connection and whether an activity is permitted or as amended, generally may participate with the local elections of the prohibited under 5 CFR 733.103– in nonpartisan political activities. municipality or subdivision; and 733.106, should contact the United

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

States Office of Special Counsel at (800) PART 733—POLITICAL ACTIVITY— DATES: We must receive comments on 854–2824 or (202) 254–3650. Requests FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RESIDING IN this proposed AD by October 6, 2011. for Hatch Act advisory opinions may be DESIGNATED LOCALITIES ADDRESSES: You may send comments by made by e-mail to: [email protected]. any of the following methods: 1. The authority citation for part 733 In response to requests from a Federal • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to continues to read as follows: employee who resides in King George http://www.regulations.gov and follow County, Virginia, OPM proposes to Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7325; sec. 308 of Pub. the instructions for sending your designate that county as one in which L. 104–93, 109 Stat. 961, 966 (Jan. 6, 1996). comments electronically. Federal employees may run for local 2. Section 733.107(c) is amended by • Mail: Docket Management Facility, partisan political office, subject to the adding King George County, Virginia, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 limitations established by OPM, and alphabetically to the list of designated New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building accept or receive political contributions Virginia municipalities and political Ground Floor, Room W12–140, in connection with elections for local subdivisions as set forth below. Washington, DC 20590–0001. public office. This proposal reflects • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail OPM’s determination that special or § 733.107 Designated localities. address above between 9 a.m. and 5 unusual circumstances exist so that it is * * * * * p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the domestic interest of Federal (c) Federal holidays. employees residing in King George *** • Fax: (202) 493–2251. County to participate in these political In Virginia For service information identified in activities. This determination is based *** this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. on written material provided by the King George County Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United applicant, interviews with the *** Kingdom: telephone 44 (0) 1332 242424; applicant, and documentary material [FR Doc. 2011–21392 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] fax 44 (0) 1332 249936. obtained through independent research. BILLING CODE 6325–48–P Principal factors leading to OPM’s Examining the AD Docket determination are the proximity of King You may examine the AD docket on George County to the District of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the Internet at http:// Columbia, the rapid growth of the www.regulations.gov; or in person at the county within the past few years, Federal Aviation Administration Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. significant public issues associated with and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, this growth, and a significant Federal 14 CFR Part 39 except Federal holidays. The AD docket presence within King George County. contains this proposed AD, the A copy of this notice will be [Docket No. FAA–2011–0836; Directorate regulatory evaluation, any comments published in two local newspapers Identifier 2010–NE–38–AD] received, and other information. The serving King George County. street address for the Docket Operations If this proposed rule is adopted, OPM RIN 2120–AA64 office (phone (800) 647–5527) is the will amend 5 CFR 733.107(c) by adding Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce same as the Mail address provided in King George County to the list of plc (RR) Trent 800 Series Turbofan the ADDRESSES designated Virginia municipalities and section. Comments will Engines political subdivisions in which Federal be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Government employees may participate AGENCY: Federal Aviation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in elections for local partisan political Administration (FAA), DOT. office in accordance with the conditions Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Certification Office, FAA, Engine & specified in 5 CFR 733.103–733.106. (NPRM). The addition of King George County Propeller Directorate, 12 New England will be listed after Herndon, Virginia, SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; and before Loudoun County, Virginia. airworthiness directive (AD) for the e-mail: [email protected]; telephone (781) 238–7143; fax (781) 238–7199. E.O. 12291, Federal Regulation products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I have determined that this is not a airworthiness information (MCAI) Comments Invited major rule as defined under section 1(b) issued by an aviation authority of of E.O. 12291, Federal Regulation. another country to identify and correct We invite you to send any written Regulatory Flexibility Act an unsafe condition on an aviation relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments I certify that this regulation will not product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: to an address listed under the have a significant economic impact on ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. a substantial number of small entities Fuel leaks from the engine have occurred FAA–2011–0836; Directorate Identifier in-service due to damage to sections of the because the changes will affect only 2010–NE–38–AD’’ at the beginning of employees of the Federal Government. fan case Low Pressure (LP) fuel tubes which run between the Low Pressure and the High your comments. We specifically invite List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 733 Pressure (HP) fuel pumps. This damage has comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy Political activity—Federal employees been caused by frettage between the securing clips and the tube outer surface, which has aspects of this proposed AD. We will residing in designated localities. caused localised thinning of the tube wall consider all comments received by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. thickness. The thinning of the tube wall closing date and may amend this John Berry, causes the tube to fracture and fuel loss to proposed AD based on those comments. Director. occur. We will post all comments we Accordingly, the Office of Personnel We are proposing this AD to prevent receive, without change, to http:// Management proposes to amend 5 CFR engine fuel leaks, which could result in www.regulations.gov, including any part 733 as follows: risk to the airplane. personal information you provide. We

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52289

will also post a report summarizing each take about 3 work-hours per product to The Proposed Amendment substantive verbal contact with FAA comply with this proposed AD. The Accordingly, under the authority personnel concerning this proposed AD. average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. delegated to me by the Administrator, Using the search function of the Web Required parts would cost about $225 the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part site, anyone can find and read the per product. Based on these figures, we 39 as follows: comments in any of our dockets, estimate the cost of the proposed AD on including, if provided, the name of the U.S. operators to be $52,800. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS individual who sent the comment (or Authority for this Rulemaking DIRECTIVES signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Title 49 of the United States Code 1. The authority citation for part 39 You may review the DOT’s complete specifies the FAA’s authority to issue continues to read as follows: Privacy Act Statement in the Federal rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Register published on April 11, 2000 section 106, describes the authority of § 39.13 [Amended] (65 FR 19477–78). the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Discussion Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more detail the scope of the Agency’s the following new AD: The European Aviation Safety Agency authority. Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA–2011– (EASA), which is the Technical Agent We are issuing this rulemaking under 0836; Directorate Identifier 2010–NE– 38–AD. for the Member States of the European the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, Community, has issued EASA Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: Comments Due Date Airworthiness Directive 2010–0188, General requirements.’’ Under that (a) We must receive comments by October dated September 20, 2010 (referred to section, Congress charges the FAA with 6, 2011. after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs) unsafe condition for the specified air commerce by prescribing regulations products. The MCAI states: for practices, methods, and procedures (b) None. Fuel leaks from the engine have occurred the Administrator finds necessary for Applicability in-service due to damage to sections of the safety in air commerce. This regulation (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) fan case Low Pressure (LP) fuel tubes which is within the scope of that authority Trent 875–17, 877–17, 884–17, 884B–17, run between the Low Pressure and the High because it addresses an unsafe condition 892–17, 892B–17, and 895–17 turbofan Pressure (HP) fuel pumps. This damage has that is likely to exist or develop on engines. These engines are installed on, but been caused by frettage between the securing not limited to, Boeing 777 series airplanes. clips and the tube outer surface, which has products identified in this rulemaking caused localised thinning of the tube wall action. Reason thickness. The thinning of the tube wall Regulatory Findings (d) This AD results from: causes the tube to fracture and fuel loss to Fuel leaks from the engine have occurred occur. We determined that this proposed AD in-service due to damage to sections of the This AD requires inspection and, if would not have federalism implications fan case Low Pressure (LP) fuel tubes which necessary, replacement of fan case LP fuel under Executive Order 13132. This run between the Low Pressure and the High tubes and clips. proposed AD would not have a Pressure (HP) fuel pumps. This damage has Relevant Service Information substantial direct effect on the States, on been caused by frettage between the securing the relationship between the national clips and the tube outer surface, which has Rolls-Royce plc has issued Alert caused localised thinning of the tube wall Service Bulletin RB.211–73–AD685, Government and the States, or on the thickness. The thinning of the tube wall Revision 5, dated August 18, 2010. The distribution of power and causes the tube to fracture and fuel loss to actions described in this service responsibilities among the various occur. information are intended to correct the levels of government. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine unsafe condition identified in the For the reasons discussed above, I fuel leaks, which could result in risk to the MCAI. certify this proposed regulation: airplane. 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Actions and Compliance FAA’s Determination and Requirements action’’ under Executive Order 12866; of this Proposed AD (e) Unless already done, do the following 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the actions. This product has been approved by DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Initial Inspection the aviation authority of the United (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and Kingdom, and is approved for operation (f) Within 2,000 hours in service after the (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in the United States. Pursuant to our effective date of this AD, or before in Alaska, and bilateral agreement with the United accumulating 3,000 hours-since-new or 3,000 (4) Will not have a significant hours-since-last inspection, whichever is Kingdom, they have notified us of the latest, do one of the following: unsafe condition described in the MCAI economic impact, positive or negative, and service information referenced on a substantial number of small entities On-wing Inspection above. We are proposing this AD under the criteria of the Regulatory (1) Inspect the fan case LP fuel tubes (Part because we evaluated all information Flexibility Act. Numbers (P/N) FK22617, FK19213 and provided by EASA and determined the We prepared a regulatory evaluation FK23986) and the clips that hold the fuel unsafe condition exists and is likely to of the estimated costs to comply with tubes in place. Use paragraphs 3.A.(2) and exist or develop on other products of the this proposed AD and placed it in the 3.A.(3) (On-wing) of RR Non-Modification AD docket. Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211–73–D685, same type design. Revision 5, dated August 18, 2010, or List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Costs of Compliance In-shop Inspection We estimate that this proposed AD Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation (2) Inspect the fan case LP fuel tubes (P/ would affect about 110 products of U.S. safety, Incorporation by reference, N FK22617, FK19213 and FK23986) and the registry. We also estimate that it would Safety. clips that hold the fuel tubes in place. Use

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

paragraphs 3.B.(2) and 3.B.(3) (In-shop) of RR SUMMARY: This action proposes to statement is made: ‘‘Comments to NMSB RB.211–73–D685, Revision 5, dated amend Class E Airspace at Pelion, SC, Docket No. FAA–2011–0627; Airspace August 18, 2010. as new Standard Instrument Approach Docket No. 11–ASO–27.’’ The postcard Repetitive Inspection Procedures have been developed at will be date/time stamped and returned (g) Following accomplishment of the initial Lexington County Airport at Pelion. to the commenter. inspection in compliance with the This action would enhance the safety All communications received before requirements of paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of and airspace management of Instrument the specified closing date for comments this AD, repeat the inspection at intervals not Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the will be considered before taking action exceeding 3,000 hours, and, if necessary, airport. This action also would on the proposed rule. The proposal replace the fan case LP fuel tubes (P/N recognize the airport name change to contained in this notice may be changed FK22617, FK19213 and FK23986) and the Lexington County Airport at Pelion. in light of the comments received. A clips that hold the fuel tubes in place. Use report summarizing each substantive paragraphs 3.A.(2) and 3.A.(3) (On-wing) or DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2011. The Director public contact with FAA personnel 3.B.(2) and 3.B.(3) (In-shop) of RR NMSB concerned with this rulemaking will be RB.211–73–D685, Revision 5, dated August of the Federal Register approves this 18, 2010. incorporation by reference action under filed in the docket. title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part FAA AD Differences Availability of NPRMs 51, subject to the annual revision of An electronic copy of this document (h) None. FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of may be downloaded from and conforming amendments. Alternative Methods of Compliance comments submitted through http:// (AMOCs) ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule www.regulations.gov. Recently (i) The Manager, Engine Certification to: U. S. Department of Transportation, published rulemaking documents can Office, FAA, has the authority to approve Docket Operations, West Building also be accessed through the FAA’s Web AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. page at http://www.faa.gov/ New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/ Related Information 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647– publications/airspace_amendments/. (j) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must You may review the public docket Airworthiness Information European identify the Docket Number FAA–2011– containing the proposal, any comments Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 0627; Airspace Docket No. 11–ASO–27, received, and any final disposition in Airworthiness Directive 2010–0188, dated at the beginning of your comments. You person in the Dockets Office (see the September 20, 2010, and Rolls-Royce plc may also submit and review received ADDRESSES section for address and Alert Service Bulletin RB.211–73–AD685, comments through the Internet at http:// phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 Revision 5, dated August 18, 2010, for related www.regulations.gov. information. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. p.m., Monday through Friday, except FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom: John Federal Holidays. An informal docket telephone 44 (0) 1332 242424; fax 44 (0) 1332 Fornito, Operations Support Group, may also be examined during normal 249936, for a copy of this service Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation business hours at the office of the information. Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation (k) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) Administration, Room 210, 1701 Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 305–6364. Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 30337. England Executive Park, Burlington, MA Persons interested in being placed on 01803; e-mail: [email protected]; telephone Comments Invited a mailing list for future NPRMs should (781) 238–7143; fax (781) 238–7199, for more Interested persons are invited to information about this AD. contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, comment on this rule by submitting (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of such written data, views, or arguments, Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on as they may desire. Comments that August 5, 2011. Proposed Rulemaking distribution provide the factual basis supporting the System, which describes the application Peter A. White, views and suggestions presented are procedure. Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller particularly helpful in developing Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. reasoned regulatory decisions on the The Proposal [FR Doc. 2011–21311 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] proposal. Comments are specifically The FAA is considering an BILLING CODE 4910–13–P invited on the overall regulatory, amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal aeronautical, economic, environmental, Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend and energy-related aspects of the Class E airspace extending upward from DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION proposal. 700 feet above the surface to support Communications should identify both new standard instrument approach Federal Aviation Administration docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– procedures developed at Lexington 2011–0627; Airspace Docket No. 11– County Airport at Pelion, Pelion, SC. 14 CFR Part 71 ASO–27) and be submitted in triplicate Airspace reconfiguration is necessary [Docket No. FAA–2011–0627; Airspace to the Docket Management System (see due to the design of new arrival Docket No. 11–ASO–27] ADDRESSES section for address and procedures, and for continued safety phone number). You may also submit and management of IFR operations at Proposed Amendment of Class E comments through the Internet at http:// the airport. Also, the airport name Airspace; Pelion, SC www.regulations.gov. would be changed from Corporate AGENCY: Federal Aviation Annotators wishing the FAA to Airport to Lexington County Airport at Administration (FAA), DOT. acknowledge receipt of their comments Pelion. on this action must submit with those Class E airspace designations are ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking comments a self-addressed stamped published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA (NPRM). postcard on which the following Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52291

and effective September 15, 2010, which § 71.1 [Amended] 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647– is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 2. The incorporation by reference in 5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must 71.1. The Class E airspace designation 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation identify the Docket Number FAA–2011– listed in this document will be Administration Order 7400.9U, 0556; Airspace Docket No. 11–ASO–21, published subsequently in the Order. Airspace Designations and Reporting at the beginning of your comments. You The FAA has determined that this Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective may also submit and review received proposed regulation only involves an September 15, 2010, is amended as comments through the Internet at established body of technical follows: http://www.regulations.gov. regulations for which frequent and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John routine amendments are necessary to Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Fornito, Operations Support Group, keep them operationally current. It, Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Above the Surface of the Earth. therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant Administration, P.O. Box 20636, regulatory action’’ under Executive * * * * * Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant ASO SC E5 Pelion, SC [AMENDED] 305–6364. rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies Lexington County Airport at Pelion, Pelion, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February SC 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant (Lat. 33°47′41″ N., long. 81°14′45″ W.) Comments Invited preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation That airspace extending upward from 700 Interested persons are invited to as the anticipated impact is so minimal. feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile comment on this rule by submitting Since this is a routine matter that will radius of the Lexington County Airport at such written data, views, or arguments, only affect air traffic procedures and air Pelion. as they may desire. Comments that navigation, it is certified that this Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August provide the factual basis supporting the proposed rule, when promulgated, 12, 2011. views and suggestions presented are would not have a significant economic Mark D. Ward, particularly helpful in developing impact on a substantial number of small Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern reasoned regulatory decisions on the entities under the criteria of the Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. proposal. Comments are specifically Regulatory Flexibility Act. [FR Doc. 2011–21287 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] invited on the overall regulatory, The FAA’s authority to issue rules BILLING CODE 4910–13–P aeronautical, economic, environmental, regarding aviation safety is found in and energy-related aspects of the Title 49 of the United States Code. proposal. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Communications should identify both authority of the FAA Administrator. docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Federal Aviation Administration 2011–0556; Airspace Docket No. 11– describes in more detail the scope of the ASO–21) and be submitted in triplicate agency’s authority. This proposed 14 CFR Part 71 to the Docket Management System (see rulemaking is promulgated under the [Docket No. FAA–2011–0556; Airspace ADDRESSES section for address and authority described in subtitle VII, part, Docket No. 11–ASO–21] phone number). You may also submit A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that comments through the Internet at section, the FAA is charged with Proposed Amendment of Class E http://www.regulations.gov. prescribing regulations to assign the use Airspace; Jacksonville, NC Annotators wishing the FAA to of airspace necessary to ensure the acknowledge receipt of their comments AGENCY: Federal Aviation safety of aircraft and the efficient use of on this action must submit with those Administration (FAA), DOT. airspace. This proposed regulation is comments a self-addressed stamped within the scope of that authority as it ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking postcard on which the following would amend Class E airspace at (NPRM). statement is made: ‘‘Comments to Lexington County Airport at Pelion, SUMMARY: This action proposes to Docket No. FAA–2011–0556; Airspace Pelion, SC. amend Class E Airspace at Jacksonville, Docket No. 11–ASO–21.’’ The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 NC, as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been to the commenter. Airspace, Incorporation by reference, developed at Albert J Ellis Airport. This All communications received before Navigation (Air). action would enhance the safety and the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action The Proposed Amendment airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the on the proposed rule. The proposal In consideration of the foregoing, the airport. contained in this notice may be changed Federal Aviation Administration in light of the comments received. A DATES: Comments must be received on proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as report summarizing each substantive or before October 6, 2011. The Director follows: public contact with FAA personnel of the Federal Register approves this concerned with this rulemaking will be PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, incorporation by reference action under filed in the docket. B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part Availability of NPRMs TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 51, subject to the annual revision of REPORTING POINTS FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of An electronic copy of this document conforming amendments. may be downloaded from and 1. The authority citation for Part 71 ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule comments submitted through http:// continues to read as follows: to: U. S. Department of Transportation, www.regulations.gov. Recently Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, Docket Operations, West Building published rulemaking documents can 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 also be accessed through the FAA’s Web 1963 Comp., p. 389. New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC page at http://www.faa.gov/

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/ The FAA’s authority to issue rules ASO NC E5 Jacksonville, NC [Amended] publications/airspace_amendments/. regarding aviation safety is found in Jacksonville, New River MCAS, NC You may review the public docket Title 49 of the United States Code. (Lat. 34°42′31″ N., long. 77°26′23″ W.) containing the proposal, any comments Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the Albert J. Ellis Airport received and any final disposition in authority of the FAA Administrator. (Lat. 34°49′45″ N., long. 77°36′44 ″ W.) person in the Dockets Office (see the Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Onslow Memorial Hospital Point In Space Coordinates ADDRESSES section for address and describes in more detail the scope of the (Lat. 34°45′36″ N., long. 77°22′28″ W.) phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 agency’s authority. This proposed p.m., Monday through Friday, except rulemaking is promulgated under the That airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 7- Federal Holidays. An informal docket authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, mile radius of New River MCAS, and within may also be examined during normal A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that a 6.7-mile radius of Albert J. Ellis Airport, business hours at the office of the section, the FAA is charged with and within a 6-mile radius of the point in Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation prescribing regulations to assign the use space (lat. 34°45′36″ N., long. 77°22′28″ W.) Administration, room 210, 1701 of airspace necessary to ensure the serving Onslow Memorial Hospital. Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia safety of aircraft and the efficient use of Issued in College Park, Georgia on August 30337. airspace. This proposed regulation is 12, 2011. Persons interested in being placed on within the scope of that authority as it Mark D. Ward, a mailing list for future NPRM’s should would amend Class E airspace at Albert Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, J Ellis Airport, Jacksonville, NC. Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 [FR Doc. 2011–21288 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Proposed Rulemaking distribution Airspace, Incorporation by reference, System, which describes the application Navigation (Air). procedure. The Proposed Amendment DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The Proposal In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration The FAA is considering an Federal Aviation Administration amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 14 CFR Part 71 Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend follows: [Docket No. FAA–2011–0785; Airspace Class E surface area airspace and Class Docket No. 11–AEA–20] E airspace extending upward from 700 PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, feet above the surface to support new B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR Proposed Amendment of Class E standard instrument approach TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND Airspace; Luray, VA procedures developed at Albert J Ellis REPORTING POINTS Airport, Jacksonville, NC, and for AGENCY: Federal Aviation continued safety and management of 1. The authority citation for part 71 Administration (FAA), DOT. IFR operations at the airport. continues to read as follows: ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Class E airspace designations are Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, published in Paragraph 6002 and 6005, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– SUMMARY: This action proposes to respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U, 1963 Comp., p. 389. amend Class E Airspace at Luray, VA, dated August 18, 2010, and effective as new Standard Instrument Approach September 15, 2010, which is § 71.1 [Amended] Procedures have been developed at incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 2. The incorporation by reference in Luray Caverns Airport. This action 71.1. The Class E airspace designation 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation would enhance the safety and airspace listed in this document will be Administration Order 7400.9U, management of Instrument Flight Rules published subsequently in the Order. Airspace Designations and Reporting (IFR) operations at the airport. This The FAA has determined that this Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective action also would update the geographic proposed regulation only involves an September 15, 2010, is amended as coordinates of the airport. established body of technical follows: regulations for which frequent and DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, Comments routine amendments are necessary to Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace must be received on or before October Designated as Surface Areas. keep them operationally current. It, 6, 2011. The Director of the Federal therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant * * * * * Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of regulatory action’’ under Executive ASO NC E2 Jacksonville Albert J Ellis Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant Airport, NC [Amended] Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies the annual revision of FAA, Order Jacksonville, Albert J. Ellis Airport, NC 7400.9 and publication of conforming and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February (Lat. 34°49′45″ N., long. 77°36′44″ W.) amendments. 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant Within a 4.2-mile radius of Albert J. Ellis preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule as the anticipated impact is so minimal. during the specific days and times to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Since this is a routine matter that will established in advance by a Notice to Docket Operations, West Building only affect air traffic procedures and air Airmen. The effective days and times will Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 navigation, it is certified that this thereafter be continuously published in the New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC proposed rule, when promulgated, Airport/Facility Directory. 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647– would not have a significant economic Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must impact on a substantial number of small Extending Upward from 700 feet or More identify the Docket Number FAA–2011– entities under the criteria of the Above the Surface of the Earth. 0785; Airspace Docket No. 11–AEA–20, Regulatory Flexibility Act. * * * * * at the beginning of your comments. You

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52293

may also submit and review received person in the Dockets Office (see the Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the comments through the Internet at http:// ADDRESSES section for address and authority of the FAA Administrator. www.regulations.gov. phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John p.m., Monday through Friday, except describes in more detail the scope of the Fornito, Operations Support Group, Federal Holidays. An informal docket agency’s authority. This proposed Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation may also be examined during normal rulemaking is promulgated under the Administration, P.O. Box 20636, business hours at the office of the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 305–6364. Administration, room 210, 1701 section, the FAA is charged with Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: prescribing regulations to assign the use 30337. of airspace necessary to ensure the Comments Invited Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should safety of aircraft and the efficient use of Interested persons are invited to contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, airspace. This proposed regulation is comment on this rule by submitting (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of within the scope of that authority as it such written data, views, or arguments, Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of would amend Class E airspace at Luray as they may desire. Comments that Proposed Rulemaking distribution Caverns Airport, Luray, VA. provide the factual basis supporting the System, which describes the application Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 views and suggestions presented are procedure. particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the The Proposal Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). proposal. Comments are specifically The FAA is considering an invited on the overall regulatory, amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal The Proposed Amendment aeronautical, economic, environmental, Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend and energy-related aspects of the Class E airspace extending upward from In consideration of the foregoing, the proposal. 700 feet above the surface to support Federal Aviation Administration Communications should identify both new standard instrument approach proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– procedures developed at Luray Caverns follows: 2011–0785; Airspace Docket No. 11– Airport, Luray, VA. Airspace AEA–20) and be submitted in triplicate reconfiguration is necessary for PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, to the Docket Management System (see continued safety and management of B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR ADDRESSES section for address and IFR operations at the airport. The TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND phone number). You may also submit geographic coordinates for Luray REPORTING POINTS comments through the Internet at http:// Caverns Airport also would be adjusted www.regulations.gov. to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical 1. The authority citation for part 71 Annotators wishing the FAA to database. continues to read as follows: acknowledge receipt of their comments Class E airspace designations are Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, on this action must submit with those published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– comments a self-addressed stamped Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, 1963 Comp., p. 389. postcard on which the following and effective September 15, 2010, which statement is made: ‘‘Comments to is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR § 71.1 [Amended] Docket No. FAA–2011–0785; Airspace 71.1. The Class E airspace designation 2. The incorporation by reference in Docket No. 11–AEA–20.’’ The postcard listed in this document will be 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation will be date/time stamped and returned published subsequently in the Order. to the commenter. The FAA has determined that this Administration Order 7400.9U, All communications received before proposed regulation only involves an Airspace Designations and Reporting the specified closing date for comments established body of technical Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective will be considered before taking action regulations for which frequent and September 15, 2010, is amended as on the proposed rule. The proposal routine amendments are necessary to follows: contained in this notice may be changed keep them operationally current. It, in light of the comments received. A therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas report summarizing each substantive regulatory action’’ under Executive Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More public contact with FAA personnel Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant Above the Surface of the Earth. concerned with this rulemaking will be rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies * * * * * filed in the docket. and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February AEA VA E5 Luray, VA [Amended] 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant Availability of NPRMs Luray Caverns Airport, VA preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ An electronic copy of this document as the anticipated impact is so minimal. (Lat. 38 40 2 N., long. 78 30 4 W.) may be downloaded from and Since this is a routine matter that will That airspace extending upward from 700 comments submitted through http:// only affect air traffic procedures and air feet above the surface within a 14.5-mile www.regulations.gov. Recently navigation, it is certified that this radius of Luray Caverns Airport. published rulemaking documents can proposed rule, when promulgated, Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August also be accessed through the FAA’s Web would not have a significant economic 10, 2011. page at http://www.faa.gov/ impact on a substantial number of small Mark D. Ward, airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/ entities under the criteria of the publications/airspace_amendments/. Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Regulatory Flexibility Act. Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. You may review the public docket The FAA’s authority to issue rules containing the proposal, any comments regarding aviation safety is found in [FR Doc. 2011–21289 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] received and any final disposition in Title 49 of the United States Code. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR it is considering the establishment of a Marcella Giles, A representative of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. In allottees of Oklahoma Indian Land/ Office of Natural Resources Revenue the January 2011 notice, we announced Mineral Owners of Associated Nations; [Docket No. ONRR–2011–0007] our intent to establish a negotiated Perry Shirley, A representative of The rulemaking committee to negotiate and Navajo Nation; 30 CFR Part 1206 develop a proposed rule and asked James Barnes, A representative of the interested parties to nominate Council of Petroleum Accountants Second Notice of Intent To Establish representatives for membership on the Societies; an Indian Oil Valuation Negotiated Committee. We received 12 responses Rob Thompson, A representative of Rulemaking Committee nominating individuals to serve on the the Western Energy Alliance; Committee. This notice addresses the Dan Riemer, A representative of the AGENCY: Office of Natural Resources rest of the elements of Section 564. We American Petroleum Institute; Revenue, Interior. believe that using a negotiated Jack Vaughn, A representative of Peak ACTION: Notice of intent. rulemaking committee to make specific Energy Resources; recommendations regarding valuation of Dee Ross, A representative of SUMMARY: On January 31, 2011, the Department published a notice of intent oil from Indian leases would help the Chesapeake Energy Corporation; to establish an Indian Oil Valuation Office of Natural Resources Revenue Donald Sant, Paul Tyler, and John Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. In (ONRR) in developing a rulemaking. Barder, Three representatives of the that notice, we asked interested parties The interests significantly affected are Office of Natural Resources Revenue; to nominate representatives for oil and gas companies who produce oil and membership on the Committee and and pay royalties on Indian leases, and Weldon Loudermilk, A representative addressed many of the requirements of Indian Tribes and individual Indian of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Section 564 of the Negotiated mineral owners who receive royalties Persons who will be significantly Rulemaking Act. This notice identifies from oil produced from Indian leases affected by a proposed rule, and who the persons proposed to serve on the located on their lands. believe their interests will not be Committee and addresses the rest of the The ONRR is making a commitment adequately represented by any person requirements of Section 564 of the to ensure that the Committee has listed above, may apply for or nominate Negotiated Rulemaking Act. sufficient administrative and technical another person for membership on the negotiated rulemaking committee to DATES: Submit written comments on or resources to complete its work in a before September 21, 2011. timely fashion. ONRR, with the help of represent such interests to the proposed a facilitator, will prepare all agendas, rule. Each application or nomination ADDRESSES: You may submit comments provide meeting notes, and provide a should include: (1) The name of the and applications by the following final report of any issues on which that applicant or nominee and a description methods: the committee reached consensus. of the interests such person shall • Electronically go to http://www. ONRR will also obtain meeting space for represent; (2) evidence that the regulations.gov. In the entity titled all meetings. applicant or nominee is authorized to ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter ONRR– represent parties related to the interests 2011–0007, and then click search. The use of negotiated rulemaking will not unreasonably delay the the person proposes to represent; (3) a Follow the instructions to submit public written commitment that the applicant comments. The ONRR will post all development of a proposed rule because time limits will be placed on the or nominee shall actively participate in comments to the docket. good faith in the development of the • Mail or hand-carry (also, courier negotiation. We anticipate that negotiation will expedite a proposed rule under consideration; and (4) the service) comments to Mr. Karl reasons that the persons do not Wunderlich, Office of Natural Resources rule and ultimately the acceptance of a final rule. adequately represent the interests of the Revenue (ONRR), P.O. Box 25165, MS person submitting the application or There is a reasonable likelihood that 300B2, Denver, CO 80225–0165. Please nomination. the Committee will reach consensus on reference the Docket No. ONRR–2011– All submission of comments and a proposed rule within a fixed period of 0007 in your comments. applications should be submitted no time. It is anticipated that a proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. later than 30 calendar days following rule will be published for notice and Karl Wunderlich, ONRR, Telephone: publication of this notice. Please submit comment within 30 months of (303) 231–3663; Fax: (303) 231–3194, or comments and applications by convening the committee. Quarterly E-mail: [email protected]. instructions shown in ADDRESSES. meetings will be held with the first SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On The ONRR will publish the first meeting planned for early fall. January 31, 2011, the Department meeting date in a Federal Register published a notice of intent to establish Proposed Members of the Committee notice. The Committee will determine an Indian Oil Valuation Negotiated the dates of future meetings, and we The Department believes that the Rulemaking Committee (76 FR 5317). will then publish notice of the dates in interests significantly affected by this You may refer to that notice for the Federal Register. The first meeting rule will be represented by the background information. The will develop the ground rules on what representatives listed below: Committee will develop specific consensus means and if there is any recommendations regarding proposed Claire Ware, A representative of the issues other than the major portion revisions to the existing regulations for Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes of the analysis that needs to be discussed. valuation of oil production from Indian Wind River Reservation; Following receipt of comments on leases. One of the key issues to be Manuel Myore, A representative of this notice, ONRR will establish the addressed is the major portion valuation the Ute Indian Tribe; Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The requirement. Section 564 of the Roger Bird Bear, A representative of ONRR will participate in the Committee Negotiated Rulemaking Act requires an the allottees of Fort Berthold, North to represent the Federal Government’s agency to consider eight elements when Dakota; statutory mission. After the Committee

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52295

reaches consensus on the provisions of conducting and documenting debarment respondent but who are not the subject a proposed rule ONRR will develop a and suspension proceedings to ensure of the debarment or suspension action proposed rule to be published in the that Federal procurements and Federal would seriously interfere with and Federal Register. discretionary assistance, loans, and thwart the orderly and unbiased benefits are awarded to presently Certification conduct of the investigation, impede responsible business entities, debarment or suspension case I hereby certify that the Indian Oil organizations, and individuals. preparation, and/or conflict with the Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Additional purposes of the system are evidentiary fact finding process under Committee is in the public interest. to: Promote understanding of the case the debarment and suspension rules. Dated: August 15, 2011. decision path and concerns addressed Providing rights normally afforded Ken Salazar, by the debarring and suspending official in reaching a decision; to promote the under the Privacy Act and agency rules Secretary of the Interior. submission of relevant arguments in could provide the subject with valuable [FR Doc. 2011–21305 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] contested cases; to educate the public information that would allow BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P and private bar as to the kinds of interference with or compromise of mitigating factors and remedial witnesses or render witnesses reluctant measures that demonstrate present to cooperate; lead to suppression, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR responsibility; and to enhance the alteration, or result in destruction of 43 CFR Part 2 transparency of decision making. evidence interfering with the Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2) and development of the suspension or RIN 1090–AA94 (k)(5), the head of a Federal agency may debarment action; and/or jeopardize promulgate rules to exempt a system of Amendment of Privacy Act pending or ongoing judicial proceedings records from certain provisions of 5 or impede the ability to act to protect Regulations, Request for Comments U.S.C. 552a if the system of records is Federal procurement and non- ‘‘investigatory material complied for law AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. procurement program interests. enforcement purposes, other than ACTION: Proposed Rule. material within the scope of subsection Additionally, the debarment and suspension rules provide a process SUMMARY: The Department of the (j)(2)’’ or ‘‘investigatory material which accords recipients of action Interior is amending its regulations to compiled solely for the purpose of notices, as part of the contest process, exempt certain records from particular determining suitability, eligibility, or provisions of the Privacy Act. qualifications for Federal civilian the opportunity, where facts material to Specifically, the Department proposes to employment, military service, Federal the action are determined to be exempt certain records of the newly- contracts, or access to classified genuinely in dispute, for an evidentiary created Debarment and Suspension information. * * *’’ fact finding hearing at which to confront Program system of records from one or To the extent that this system of and cross examine the government’s more provisions of the Privacy Act. records contains investigatory material witnesses. within the provision of 5 U.S.C. DATES: Submit written comments on 3. From subsection (e)(1) because it is 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5), the Department of October 3, 2011. not always possible to detect the the Interior proposes to exempt the relevance or necessity of each piece of ADDRESSES: Send written comments, Debarment and Suspension Program identified by RIN 1090–AA94, by one of System of Records from provisions 5 information in the early stages of an the following methods: investigation. In some cases, it is only • U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// (H), (I); and (f). Exemptions from these after the information is evaluated in www.regulations.gov. Follow the particular subsections are justified for light of other evidence that its relevance instructions for submitting comments. and necessity to accomplish a purpose • the following reasons: Mail: Karen Burke, OS/NBC Privacy 1. From subsection (c)(3) because of the agency will be clear. Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, granting access to the accounting for 4. From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) Department of the Interior, 1951 each disclosure as normally required by Constitution Ave, NW., Mail Stop 116 because there is no necessity for such the Privacy Act, including the date, publication since the system of records SIB, Washington, DC 20240. nature, and purpose of each disclosure • E-mail: Karen Burke, OS/NBC will be exempt from the underlying and the identity of the recipient, could duties to provide notification about and Privacy Act Officer, Office of the alert the subject to the existence of the access to information in the system and Secretary, [email protected]. investigation or action interest by DOI to make amendments to and corrections FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: or other agencies. This could seriously Karen Burke, OS/NBC Privacy Act compromise case preparation by of the information in the system. Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. prematurely revealing its existence and 5. From subsection (e)(4)(I) because to Department of the Interior, 1951 nature; compromise or interfere with the extent that this provision is Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop witnesses or make witnesses reluctant to construed to require more detailed 116 SIB, Washington, DC 20240. E-mail cooperate; and/or lead to suppression, disclosure than the broad, generic at [email protected]. alteration, or destruction of evidence. information currently published in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2. From subsections (d) and (f) system notice, an exemption from this because providing access to records of a Background provision is necessary to protect the debarment or suspension action confidentiality of sources of information The Department of the Interior (DOI) investigation and the right to contest the and to protect privacy and physical Office of Acquisition and Property contents of those records and force safety of witnesses and informants. DOI Management maintains the Debarment changes to be made to the information will, nevertheless, continue to publish and Suspension Program system of contained therein to individuals whose such a notice in broad generic terms as records. The primary purpose of this names may appear in the records due to is its current practice. system of records is to assist DOI in having provided information about a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Procedural Requirements enterprises to compete with foreign- 10. National Environmental Policy Act based enterprises. 1. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. This rule does not constitute a major 12866) 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Federal action and would not have a significant effect on the quality of the The Office of Management and Budget This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or human environment. Therefore, this (OMB) has determined that this rule is rule does not require the preparation of not a significant rule and has not Tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $100 an environmental assessment or reviewed it under the requirements of environmental impact statement under Executive Order 12866. We have million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, the requirements of the National evaluated the impacts of the rule as Environmental Policy Act of 1969. required by E.O. 12866 and have local, or Tribal governments or the determined that it does not meet the private sector. This rule makes only 11. Data Quality Act minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A criteria for a significant regulatory In developing this rule, there was no statement containing the information action. The results of our evaluation are need to conduct or use a study, required by the Unfunded Mandates given below. experiment, or survey requiring peer (a) This rule will not have an annual Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. effect of $100 million or more on the L. 106–554). economy. It will not adversely affect in 5. Takings (E.O. 12630) a material way the economy, 12. Effects on Energy Supply (E.O. In accordance with Executive Order productivity, competition, jobs, the 13211) 12630, the rule does not have significant environment, public health or safety, or takings implications. This rule makes This rule is not a significant energy State, local or Tribal governments or only minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A action under the definition in Executive communities. takings implication assessment is not Order 13211. A Statement of Energy (b) This rule would not create a required. Effects is not required. serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 6. Federalism (E.O. 13132) 13. Clarity of This Regulation planned by another agency. In accordance with Executive Order We are required by Executive Order (c) This rule does not alter the 13132, this rule does not have any 12866 and 12988, the Plain Writing Act budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, federalism implications to warrant the of 2010 (H.R. 946), and the Presidential user fees, concessions, loan programs, preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write water contracts, management The rule is not associated with, nor will all rules in plain language. This means agreements, or the rights and obligations it have substantial direct effects on the each rule we publish must: of their recipients. States, on the relationship between the —Be logically organized; (d) This rule does not raise any novel national government and the States, or —Use the active voice to address legal or policy issues. on the distribution of power and readers directly; responsibilities among the various —Use clear language rather than jargon; 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act levels of government. A Federalism —Be divided into short sections and The Department of the Interior Assessment is not required. sentences; and certifies that this document will not —Use lists and tables wherever 7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) have a significant economic effect on a possible. substantial number of small entities This rule complies with the List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2 under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 requirements of Executive Order 12988. U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule does not Specifically, this rule: Privacy Act, Sensitive information, impose a requirement for small (a) Does not unduly burden the Freedom of Information Act, Reporting businesses to report or keep records on judicial system. and recordkeeping requirements. any of the requirements contained in (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be Dated: August 9, 2011. this rule. The exemptions to the Privacy Rhea Suh, Act apply to individuals, and reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management individuals are not covered entities and Budget. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. litigation; and (c) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) For the reasons stated in the 3. Small Business Regulatory requiring that all regulations be written preamble, the Department of the Interior Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) in clear language and contain clear legal proposes to amend 43 CFR part 2 as standards. This rule is not a major rule under 5 follows: U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 8. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. PART 2—RECORDS AND TESTIMONY; Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 13175) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT This rule: In accordance with Executive Order (a) Does not have an annual effect on 13175, the Department of the Interior 1. The authority citation for part 2 the economy of $100 million or more. has evaluated this rule and determined continues to read as follows: (b) Will not cause a major increase in that it would have no substantial effects Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552 and 552a; 31 costs or prices for consumers, on Federally recognized Indian Tribes. U.S.C. 9701 and 43 U.S.C. 1460–1461. individual industries, Federal, State, or Appendix F to Part 2 also is issued under 30 local government agencies, or 9. Paperwork Reduction Act U.S.C. 201–209; 30 U.S.C. 351–360. geographic regions. This rule does not require an 2. In § 2.79, add paragraphs (b)(14) (c) Does not have significant adverse information collection from 10 or more and (c)(4) to read as follows: effects on competition, employment, parties and a submission under the investment, productivity, innovation, or Paperwork Reduction Act is not § 2.79 Exemptions. the ability of United States-based required. * * * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52297

(b)* * * allow 93 days for posting of comments endangered under the Act, and a person (14) Debarment and Suspension submitted by mail). would need to obtain authorization Program, DOI–11. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. under the current statutory and (c)* * * Julian Thrash, telephone 703–602–0310. regulatory requirements to conduct any (4) Debarment and Suspension otherwise prohibited activities with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Program, DOI–11. them. * * * * * I. Background DATES: We will consider comments [FR Doc. 2011–21306 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] DoD published a proposed rule in the received or postmarked on or before BILLING CODE 4310–RK–P Federal Register on June 29, 2011 (76 September 21, 2011. FR 38089), with a request for comments ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by August 29, 2011. DoD is extending by one of the following methods: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE the comment period for 93 days to Electronically: Go to the Federal provide additional time for interested eRulemaking Portal: http:// Defense Acquisition Regulations parties to review the proposed DFARS www.regulations.gov. In the Enter System changes. Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R9–IA– 2011–0027, which is the docket number 48 CFR Parts 204 and 252 Mary Overstreet, for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations RIN 0750–AG47 panel at the top of the screen, under the System. Document Type heading, check the box [DFARS Case 2011–D039] [FR Doc. 2011–21337 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] next to Proposed Rules to locate this BILLING CODE 5001–08–P Defense Federal Acquisition document. You may submit a comment Regulation Supplement; Safeguarding by clicking on ‘‘Send a Comment.’’ By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or Unclassified DoD Information DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR hand-delivery to: Public Comments AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–IA–2011– Regulations System, Department of Fish and Wildlife Service 0027; Division of Policy and Directives Defense (DoD). Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 50 CFR Part 17 ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS comment period. [Docket No. FWS–R9–IA–2011–0027; 96300– 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 1671–0000–R4] We will not accept e-mails or faxes. SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend We will post all comments on http:// the Defense Federal Acquisition RIN 1018–AW81 www.regulations.gov. This generally Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add means that we will post any personal a new subpart and associated contract Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information you provide us (see the clauses to address requirements for and Plants; U.S. Captive-Bred Inter- Public Comments section at the end of safeguarding unclassified DoD Subspecific Crossed or Generic Tigers SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information. The comment period is AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, information about submitting being extended 93 days to provide Interior. comments). additional time for interested parties to ACTION: Proposed rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: review the proposed DFARS changes. Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch DATES: Comments on the proposed rule SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and of Permits, Division of Management should be submitted in writing to one of Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife the addresses shown below on or before amend the regulations that implement Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite November 30, 2011, to be considered in the Endangered Species Act (Act) by 212, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone the formation of the final rule. removing inter-subspecific crossed or 703–358–21040; fax 703–358–2281. If ADDRESSES: Submit comments generic tiger (Panthera tigris) (i.e., you use a telecommunications device identified by DFARS Case 2011–D039, specimens not identified or identifiable for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal using any of the following methods: as members of Bengal, Sumatran, Information Relay Service (FIRS) at Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Siberian, or Indochinese subspecies 800–877–8339. www.regulations.gov. Follow the from the list of species that are exempt SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: instructions for submitting comments. from registration under the Captive-bred Æ E-mail: [email protected]. Include Wildlife (CBW) regulations. The Background DFARS Case 2011–D039 in the subject exemption currently allows those To prevent the extinction of wildlife line of the message. individuals or breeding operations who and plants, the Endangered Species Act Æ Fax: 703–602–0350. want to conduct otherwise prohibited of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition activities, such as take, interstate seq.) (Act), and its implementing Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Julian commerce, and export, under the Act regulations, prohibit any person subject Thrash, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), with U.S. captive-bred, live inter- to the jurisdiction of the United States Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, subspecific crossed or generic tigers to from conducting certain activities Washington, DC 20301–3060. do so without becoming registered. We unless authorized by a permit. These Comments received generally will be are proposing this change to the activities include import, export, take, posted without change to http:// regulations to strengthen control over and interstate or foreign commerce. The www.regulations.gov, including any captive breeding of tigers in the United Department of the Interior may permit personal information provided. States to ensure that such breeding these activities for endangered species To confirm receipt of your comment, supports the conservation of the species for scientific research or enhancement please check http://www.regulations.gov in the wild consistent with the purposes of the propagation or survival of the approximately two to three days after of the Act. The inter-subspecific crossed species, provided the activities are submission to verify posting (except or generic tigers remain listed as consistent with the purposes of the Act.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

In addition, for threatened species, relate more closely to its original intent, For many years, the international permits may be issued for the above- i.e., the encouragement of responsible community has expressed concern listed activities, as well as zoological, breeding that is specifically designed to about the status of tigers in the wild and horticultural, or botanical exhibition; help conserve the species involved’’ (63 the risk that captive tigers may sustain education; and special purposes FR 48636). the demand for tiger parts, which would consistent with the Act. The Secretary In 1998, the Service amended the ultimately have a detrimental effect on of the Interior has delegated the CBW regulations (63 FR 48634, the survival of the species in the wild. authority to administer endangered and September 11, 1998) to delete the In 2005, Werner (p. 24) estimated there threatened species permit matters to the requirement to obtain a CBW were 4,692 tigers held in captivity in the Director of the Fish and Wildlife registration for holders of inter- United States. Approximately 264 tigers Service. The Service’s Division of subspecific crossed or generic tigers were held in institutions registered with Management Authority administers the (Panthera tigris) (i.e., specimens not the Association of Zoos and Aquariums permit program for the import or export identified or identifiable as members of (AZA), 1,179 in wildlife sanctuaries, of listed species; the sale or offer for sale Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, or 2,120 in institutions registered by the in interstate and foreign commerce for Indochinese subspecies (Panthera tigris U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), nonnative listed species; and the take of tigris, P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, and and 1,120 in private hands. In 2008, nonnative listed wildlife within the P. t. corbetti, respectively)). Any Williamson and Henry stated that as United States. otherwise prohibited activities with many as 5,000 tigers are in captivity in these specimens are authorized only the United States, but cautioned that, Previous Federal Action when the activities can be shown to given the current State and Federal legal In 1979, the Service published the enhance the propagation or survival of framework that regulates U.S. captive Captive-bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations the species, provided the principal tigers, the exact size of the population (44 FR 54002, September 17, 1979) to purpose is to facilitate captive breeding. is unknown (Williamson and Henry reduce Federal permitting requirements Although no written annual reports are 2008). An estimated 5,000 captive tigers and facilitate captive breeding of required, holders of these specimens occur on China’s commercial tiger endangered and threatened species must maintain accurate written records farms, where tigers are being bred under certain conditions. These of activities, including births, deaths, intensively and produce more than 800 conditions include: and transfers of specimens, and make animals each year (Williamson and (1) A person may become registered the records accessible to Service agents Henry 2008, p. 40). Tiger body parts, with the Service to conduct otherwise for inspection at reasonable hours as such as organs, bones, and pelts, are in prohibited activities when the activities provided in 50 CFR 13.46 and 13.47. demand not only in China, but also on can be shown to enhance the The exemption for inter-subspecific the global black market. Organs and propagation or survival of the species; crossed or generic tigers was based on bones are used in traditional Asian (2) Interstate commerce is authorized the alleged lack of conservation value of medicines, which are purchased by only when both the buyer and seller are these specimens due to their mixed or consumers who believe the parts convey registered for the same species; unknown genetic composition. The strength, health, and virility. (3) The registration is only for live, intention behind the exemption was for mainly non-native endangered or the Service to focus its oversight on Conservation Status threatened wildlife that was born in populations of ‘‘purebred’’ animals of The tiger is a species of global captivity in the United States (although the various tiger subspecies to further concern, is classified as endangered in the Service may determine that a native their conservation in the wild. Despite the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010), and is species is eligible for the registration; to this exemption, inter-subspecific protected by a number of U.S. laws and date, the only native species granted crossed or generic tigers are still treaties. It is listed as endangered under eligibility under the registration is the protected under the Act. the Act. Section 3 of the Act defines an Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis)); ‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species (4) Registration does not authorize Species Status which is in danger of extinction activities with non-living wildlife, a The wild tiger was once abundant throughout all or a significant portion of provision that is intended to discourage throughout Asia. By the end of the 19th its range.’’ The listing is at the species the propagation of endangered or Century, an estimated 100,000 tigers level and, thus, includes all subspecies threatened wildlife for consumptive occurred in the wild (Nowak 1999, p. of tiger (including those that are of markets; and 828), but by the late 1990s, the unknown subspecies, referred to as (5) The registrants are required to estimated population declined to 5,000– ‘‘generic’’ tigers) and inter-subspecific maintain written records of authorized 7,000 animals (Seidensticker et al. 1999, crosses. activities and report them annually to p. xvii). Today’s population is thought The species is also protected by the the Service. The CBW registration has to be 3,000–5,000 individuals, according Convention on International Trade in provided zoological institutions and to the IUCN (International Union for Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and breeding operations the ability to Conservation of Nature) Red List Flora (CITES). Under this treaty, 175 quickly move animals between estimate (Chundawat et al. 2010, member countries (Parties) work registered institutions for breeding unpaginated), with no more than 2,500 together to ensure that international purposes. mature breeding adults (Williamson and trade in protected species is not In 1993, the Service amended the Henry 2008, pp. 7, 43). The once- detrimental to the survival of wild CBW regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g) (58 abundant tiger now lives in small, populations. The United States and all FR 68323, December 27, 1993) to fragmented groups, mostly in protected the tiger range countries are Parties to eliminate public education through forest, refuges, and national parks (FWS CITES. The tiger is listed in Appendix exhibition of living wildlife as the sole 2010a, p. 1). The species occupies only I, which includes species threatened justification for the issuance of a CBW about 7 percent of its original range, and with extinction whose trade is registration. ‘‘This decision was based in the past decade, the species’ range permitted only under exceptional on the Service’s belief that the scope of has decreased by as much as 41 percent circumstances, and which generally the CBW system should be revised to (Dinerstein et al. 2007, p. 508). precludes commercial trade. The United

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52299

States has a long history of working Concerns Raised and Recommendations species. Inter-subspecific tiger crosses within CITES to promote tiger The World Wildlife Fund, TRAFFIC and animals of unknown subspecies conservation and has been a leader in North America, other nongovernmental cannot be used for maintaining genetic supporting strong actions within CITES organizations (NGOs), and the public viability and distinctness of specific for tigers, including strict controls on have expressed concerns about the tiger subspecies. Generic tigers are of captive-bred animals. In 2007 at the potential role U.S. captive tigers may unknown genetic origin and are 14th meeting of the Conference of the play in the trade in tiger parts. In July typically not maintained in a manner to Parties to CITES (CoP14), we were 2008, TRAFFIC published a report ensure that inbreeding or other closely involved in drafting Decision entitled, Paper Tigers? The Role of the inappropriate matings of animals do not occur. By exempting inter-subspecific 14.69, which calls on countries with U.S. Captive Tiger Population in the crossed or generic tigers from the CBW intensive commercial breeding Trade in Tiger Parts (Williamson and registration process in 1998, we may operations of tigers to implement Henry 2008). The report found no have inadvertently suggested that the measures to restrict the captive indication that U.S. tigers currently are breeding of these tigers qualifies as population to a level supportive only to entering domestic or international trade conservation. By removing the conserving wild tigers, and for tigers not as live animals or as parts and products. exemption, we can reinforce the value to be bred for trade in their parts and However, given the precarious status of of conservation breeding of individual products. Although the decision was tigers in the wild and the potential that tiger subspecies and discourage the primarily directed at large commercial U.S. captive tigers could enter trade and breeding operations such as those found breeding of tigers of unknown or mixed undermine conservation efforts, lineage. in China, we are aware of the large TRAFFIC made several number of captive tigers in the United Although we are unaware of any recommendations to close potential evidence that tiger parts are entering States and the need to be vigilant in loopholes in current Federal and State monitoring these tigers as well. into trade from the captive U.S. regulations to address the potential use population of tigers, we recognize that The tiger is afforded additional of captive U.S. tigers in trade. One of protection under the Captive Wildlife the use of tiger parts and products, those recommendations was for the including in traditional medicine, poses Safety Act (CWSA) and the Rhinoceros Service to rescind the exemption under and Tiger Conservation Act (RTCA). The a significant threat to wild tiger 50 CFR 17.21(g)(6) for holders of inter- populations. The United States has CWSA amended the Lacey Act to subspecific crossed or generic tigers to worked vigorously with other CITES address concerns about public safety register and submit annual reports countries to encourage not only the and the growing number of big cats, under the CBW regulations. adoption of measures to protect wild including tigers, in private hands in the tiger populations from poaching and United States. The law and its Proposed Removal of Inter-Subspecific illegal trade, but also the regulations make it illegal to import, Crossed or Generic Tigers From 50 CFR implementation of measures to ensure export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 17.21(g)(6) that breeding of tigers in captivity or purchase in interstate or foreign Based on an analysis of current supports conservation goals and that commerce any live big cats except by information on factors posing a threat to tigers are not bred for trade in parts and certain exempt entities. Entities exempt tigers and their status in the wild, we products. Despite a lack of evidence that from the CWSA include a person, propose to amend the CBW regulations parts from captive-bred tigers in the facility, or other entity licensed by the that implement the Act by removing United States are entering international USDA Animal and Plant Health inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger trade, we are taking this action out of an Inspection Service under the Animal (Panthera tigris) (i.e., specimens not abundance of caution given the Welfare Act to possess big cats identified or identifiable as members of precarious status of tigers in the wild. (typically zoos, circuses, and Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, or The CBW exemption also has created researchers) or registered to transport Indochinese subspecies (Panthera tigris enforcement difficulties. Specifically, big cats; State colleges, universities, and tigris, P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, and law enforcement cases have hinged on agencies; State-licensed wildlife P. t. corbetti, respectively) from whether activities the Service has rehabilitators and veterinarians; and paragraph (g)(6) of 50 CFR 17.21. This identified as illegal were actually wildlife sanctuaries that meet certain action would eliminate the exemption exempted under the current regulations. criteria. from registering and reporting under the By removing the exemption, persons The RTCA is another powerful tool in CBW regulations by persons who want engaged in otherwise-prohibited combating the international trade in to conduct otherwise-prohibited activities will need to obtain a permit or products containing tiger parts. It activities under the Act with live inter- other authorization, giving the Service prohibits the sale, import, and export of subspecific crossed or generic tigers greater ability to make enforcement products intended for human use and born in the United States. Inter- cases involving tigers. containing, or labeled or advertised as subspecific crossed or generic tigers It should be noted, however, that containing, any substance derived from remain listed as endangered under the removing the exemption for inter- tiger and provides for substantial Act, and a person would need to qualify subspecific crossed or generic tigers will criminal and civil penalties for for an exemption or obtain an not result in control of ownership, violators. The RTCA also establishes a authorization under the remaining intrastate commerce, or noncommercial fund that allows the Service to grant statutory and regulatory requirements to movement of these tigers across State money in support of on-the-ground tiger conduct any prohibited activities. lines. These activities are not prohibited conservation efforts, such as anti- We are proposing this change to the by the Act, and we have no authority to poaching programs, habitat and regulations to ensure that we maintain prohibit them. ecosystem management, development of strict control of captive tigers in the Finally, we are also proposing to nature reserves, wildlife surveys and United States. We do not believe that reorganize paragraph (g)(6) to make the monitoring, management of human- breeding inter-subspecific crossed or section clearer and more user-friendly. wildlife conflict, and public awareness generic tigers provides a conservation The proposed text reorganizes the list of campaigns (FWS 2010b. p. 1). benefit for the long-term survival of the species that are exempted from the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

registration process by grouping like in taking, exporting, re-importing, and b. This proposed rule would not species together. This reorganization selling in interstate or foreign commerce produce a Federal requirement of $100 consists primarily of redesignating of inter-subspecific crossed or generic million or greater in any year and is not subparagraphs. With the exception of tigers would be considered small as a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under removing inter-subspecific crossed or defined by the SBA. the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. generic tigers, the text is the same as This proposed rule would require Takings: Under Executive Order currently appears in 50 CFR 17.21(g)(6). individuals conducting otherwise 12630, this rule would not have prohibited activities with the inter- significant takings implications. A Required Determinations subspecific crossed or generic tiger to takings implication assessment is not Regulatory Planning and Review— apply for authorization under the Act required. This proposed rule is not Executive Order 12866: The Office of and pay an application fee of $100– considered to have takings implications Management and Budget (OMB) has $200. The regulatory change is not because it allows individuals to obtain determined that this rule is not major in scope and would create only a authorization for otherwise prohibited significant under Executive Order 12866 modest financial or paperwork burden activities with the inter-subspecific (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its on the affected members of the general crossed or generic tigers when issuance determination upon the following four public. criteria are met. criteria. We, therefore, certify that this rule Federalism: This proposed revision to (a) Whether the rule will have an would not have a significant economic part 17 does not contain significant annual effect of $100 million or more on effect on a substantial number of small Federalism implications. A Federalism the economy or adversely affect an entities as defined under the Regulatory Assessment under Executive Order economic sector, productivity, jobs, the Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A 13132 is not required. environment, or other units of Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not Civil Justice Reform: Under Executive government. required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor (b) Whether the rule will create Compliance Guide is not required. has determined that this proposed rule inconsistencies with other Federal Small Business Regulatory does not unduly burden the judicial agencies’ actions. Enforcement Fairness Act: This system and meets the requirements of (c) Whether the rule will materially proposed rule is not a major rule under subsections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Order. loan programs, or the rights and Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Paperwork Reduction Act: The Office obligations of their recipients. This proposed rule: of Management and Budget approved (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal a. Would not have an annual effect on the information collection in part 17 or policy issues. the economy of $100 million or more. and assigned OMB Control Number Regulatory Flexibility Act: Under the This rule proposes to remove the inter- 1018–0093, which expires February 28, Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended subspecific crossed or generic tigers 2014. This proposed rule does not by the Small Business Regulatory from the exemption to register under the contain any new information collections Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of CBW regulations. If finalized, or recordkeeping requirements for 1996), whenever a Federal agency is individuals and captive-breeding which OMB approval is required under required to publish a notice of operations would need to obtain the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 rulemaking for any proposed or final endangered species permits or other (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not rule, it must prepare and make available authorization to engage in certain conduct or sponsor and a person is not for public comment a regulatory otherwise prohibited activities. This required to respond to a collection of flexibility analysis that describes the proposed rule would not have a information unless it displays a effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., negative effect on this part of the currently valid OMB control number. small businesses, small organizations, economy. It will affect all businesses, National Environmental Policy Act and small government jurisdictions) (5 whether large or small, the same. There (NEPA): The Service has determined U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no is not a disproportionate share of that this proposed action is a regulatory regulatory flexibility analysis is required benefits for small or large businesses. change that is administrative and if the head of an agency certifies that the b. Would not cause a major increase procedural in nature. As such, the rule would not have a significant in costs or prices for consumers; proposed amendment is categorically economic impact on a substantial individual industries; Federal, State, excluded from further NEPA review as number of small entities. Thus, for a Tribal, or local government agencies; or provided by 43 CFR 46.210(i), of the regulatory flexibility analysis to be geographic regions. This rule would Department of the Interior required, impacts must exceed a result in a small increase in the number Implementation of the National threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a of applications for permits or other Environmental Policy Act of 1969; final threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of authorizations to conduct otherwise- rule (73 FR 6129269 (October 15, 2008)). small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). prohibited activities with inter- No further documentation will be made. SBREFA amended the Regulatory subspecific crossed or generic tigers. Government-to-Government Flexibility Act to require Federal c. Would not have significant adverse Relationship with Tribes: Under the agencies to provide a statement of the effects on competition, employment, President’s memorandum of April 29, factual basis for certifying that a rule investment, productivity, innovation, or 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government would not have a significant economic the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to Relations with Native American Tribal impact on a substantial number of small compete with foreign-based enterprises. Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512 entities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: DM 2, we have evaluated possible The U.S. Small Business Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform effects on Federally recognized Indian Administration (SBA) defines a small Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.): Tribes and have determined that there business as one with annual revenue or a. This proposed rule would not are no effects. employment that meets or is below an significantly or uniquely affect small Energy Supply, Distribution or Use: established size standard. We expect governments. A Small Government Executive Order 13211 pertains to that the majority of the entities involved Agency Plan is not required. regulations that significantly affect

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52301

energy supply, distribution, and use. Proposed Regulation Promulgation (D) No specimens of the taxa in This proposed rule would not For the reasons given in the preamble, paragraph (g)(6) of this section that were significantly affect energy supplies, we propose to amend part 17, taken from the wild may be imported for distribution, and use. Therefore, this subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the breeding purposes absent a definitive action is a not a significant energy Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: showing that the need for new action and no Statement of Energy bloodlines can be met only by wild Effects is required. PART 17—[AMENDED] specimens, that suitable foreign-bred, Clarity of this Regulation: We are captive individuals are unavailable, and required by Executive Orders 12866 and 1. The authority citation for part 17 that wild populations can sustain 12988 and by the Presidential continues to read as follows: limited taking. In addition, an import Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. permit must be issued under § 17.22. all rules in plain language. This means 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– (E) Any permanent exports of such that each rule we publish must: 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. specimens meet the requirements of (a) Be logically organized; 2. Amend § 17.21 by revising paragraph (g)(4) of this section. (b) Use the active voice to address paragraph (g)(6) to read as set forth (F) Each person claiming the benefit readers directly; below: of the exception in paragraph (g)(1) of (c) Use clear language rather than this section must maintain accurate jargon; § 17.21 Prohibitions. written records of activities, including (d) Be divided into short sections and * * * * * births, deaths, and transfers of sentences; and (g) * * * specimens, and make those records (e) Use lists and tables wherever (6) Exemption from registration accessible to Service agents for possible. requirement. inspection at reasonable hours as set If you feel that we have not met these (i) If the conditions in paragraph forth in §§ 13.46 and 13.47. requirements, send us comments by one (g)(6)(ii) of this section are met, then any * * * * * of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES person subject to the jurisdiction of the Dated: August 4, 2011. section. To better help us revise the United States seeking to engage in any Eileen Sobeck, of the activities authorized by paragraph rule, your comments should be as Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and specific as possible. For example, you (g)(1) of this section may do so without Wildlife and Parks. first registering with the Service with should tell us the numbers of the [FR Doc. 2011–21303 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] sections or paragraphs that are unclearly respect to the following species: BILLING CODE 4310–55–P written, which sections or sentences are (A) The bar-tailed pheasant too long, the sections where you feel (Syrmaticus humiae), Elliot’s pheasant lists or tables would be useful, etc. (S. ellioti), Mikado pheasant (S. mikado), brown eared pheasant DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Public Comments (Crossoptilon mantchuricum), white National Oceanic and Atmospheric You may submit your comments and eared pheasant (C. crossoptilon), cheer Administration materials concerning this rule by one of pheasant (Catreus wallichii), Edward’s the methods listed in the ADDRESSES pheasant (Lophura edwardsi), 50 CFR Part 679 section. We will not accept comments Swinhoe’s pheasant (L. swinhoii), sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not Chinese monal (Lophophorus lhuysii), RIN 0648–XA633 listed in the ADDRESSES section. and Palawan peacock pheasant Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic We will post your entire comment— (Polyplectron emphanum); Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of including your personal identifying (B) Parakeets of the species Alaska Fishery Resources; Notice of information—on http:// Neophema pulchella and N. splendida; Rockfish Program Public Workshops www.regulations.gov. If you provide (C) The Laysan duck (Anas personal identifying information in your laysanensis); and AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries written comments, you may request at (D) The white-winged wood duck Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and the top of your document that we (Cairina scutulata). Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), withhold this information from public (ii) Conditions for exemption to Commerce. review. However, we cannot guarantee register. The following conditions must ACTION: Notice of public workshops. that we will be able to do so. exist for persons dealing with the Comments and materials we receive, species listed in paragraph (g)(6)(i) of SUMMARY: NMFS will present two public as well as supporting documentation we this section to be eligible for exemption workshops on the Central Gulf of Alaska used in preparing this proposed rule, from the requirement to register with Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program) will be available for public inspection the Service: for potentially eligible participants and on http://www.regulations.gov, or by (A) The purpose of the activity is to other interested parties. At each appointment, during normal business enhance the propagation or survival of workshop, NMFS will provide an hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife the affected exempted species. overview of the proposed Rockfish Service; Division of Management (B) Such activity does not involve Program, discuss the key differences Authority; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite interstate or foreign commerce, in the between the Rockfish Program and the 212; Arlington, VA 22203; telephone, course of a commercial activity, with Rockfish Pilot Program, provide (703) 358–2093. respect to nonliving wildlife. information on the proposed rule (C) Each specimen to be reimported is comment process, and answer List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 uniquely identified by a band, tattoo, or questions. NMFS is conducting these Endangered and threatened species, other means that was reported in public workshops to assist fishery Exports, Imports, Reporting and writing to an official of the Service at a participants in understanding and recordkeeping requirements, port of export prior to export of the reviewing the proposed rule that would Transportation. specimen from the United States. implement this new Rockfish Program.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52302 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DATES: Two workshops will be held on improve the functionality of the • Be authorized for 10 years, from the following dates: Rockfish Program and resolve identified January 1, 2012, until December 31, 1. Monday, August 29, 2011, 1 p.m. to issues in the management and viability 2021. 3 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time, Kodiak, of the fisheries. The proposed Rockfish NMFS is conducting public AK. Program would include similar workshops for fishery participants to 2. Tuesday, August 30, 2011, 5 p.m. implementation, management, provide assistance in reviewing the to 7 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, Seattle, monitoring, and enforcement measures proposed requirements of this new WA. to those developed under the Pilot program. At each workshop, NMFS will ADDRESSES: The workshops will be held Program, however, the new program provide an overview of the proposed at the following locations: would: Rockfish Program, discuss the key 1. Kodiak—Kodiak Fisheries Research • Change the qualifying years for differences between the Rockfish Center (Main Conference Room), 301 eligibility of quota share (QS); Program and the Pilot Program, and Research Court, Kodiak, AK 99615. • Use a different suite of years to provide information on the public 2. Seattle—Mountaineers Program determine the allocation of QS and comment process for the proposed rule. Center (Cascade Room), 7700 Sand sideboard limits; NMFS anticipates discussing key Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98115. • Assign to rockfish cooperatives a elements of the proposed Rockfish FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: specific portion of the Central GOA total Program at the meeting, such as Gwen Herrewig, 907–586–7091. allowable catch of species historically eligibility and the QS application process; cooperative and opt-out SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July harvested in the rockfish fisheries; • provisions; entry level longline fishery, 28, 2011 (76 FR 45217), NMFS Assign a specific amount of halibut sideboards, deliveries, and cooperative published a Notice of Availability to prohibited species catch to cooperatives quota transfer provisions; monitoring implement the proposed Central Gulf of and conserve a portion of the halibut and enforcement; and electronic Alaska (GOA) Rockfish Program as that will remain unallocated; • reporting. Additionally, NMFS will Amendment 88 to the Fishery Restrict the entry level fishery to answer questions from workshop Management Plan for Groundfish of the longline gear only; • participants. For further information on Gulf of Alaska. NMFS anticipates Relax the requirements to form a the proposed Rockfish Program, please publication of the proposed rule to cooperative; visit the NMFS Alaska Region Web site implement the Central GOA Rockfish • Specify the location where at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Program prior to workshop held in harvesters in cooperatives may deliver Kodiak on Monday, August 29, 2011. rockfish; Special Accommodations The proposed Rockfish Program is • Remove the requirement that harvesters in a catcher vessel These workshops are physically necessary to replace the Central Gulf of accessible to people with disabilities. Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program (Pilot cooperative deliver to a specific processor; Requests for special accommodations Program) that is scheduled to expire should be directed to Gwen Herrewig • Discontinue the limited access December 31, 2011. Amendment 88 was (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) fishery; approved by the North Pacific Fishery at least 5 working days before the • Simplify sideboards, and slightly Management Council (Council) on June workshop date. 14, 2010. Although some modifications modify sideboards for catcher/ were recommended by the Council, the processors; Dated: August 17, 2011. proposed Rockfish Program would • Implement a cost recovery program, Galen Tromble, retain the conservation, management, except for the entry level longline Acting Director, Office of Sustainable safety, and economic gains realized fishery; Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. under the Pilot Program. The • Establish a catch monitoring and [FR Doc. 2011–21421 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] recommended modifications would control plan specialist; and BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM 22AUP1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52303

Notices Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 162

Monday, August 22, 2011

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER the collection of information that such OMB Control Number: 0535–0245. contains documents other than rules or persons are not required to respond to Summary of Collection: The National proposed rules that are applicable to the the collection of information unless it Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) public. Notices of hearings and investigations, displays a currently valid OMB control primary function is to prepare and issue committee meetings, agency decisions and number. official State and national estimates of rulings, delegations of authority, filing of crop and livestock production, petitions and applications and agency National Agricultural Statistics Service statements of organization and functions are disposition and prices. The goal of this examples of documents appearing in this Title: 2012 Census of Agriculture. information collection is to obtain land section. OMB Control Number: 0535–0226. management information that will assist Summary of Collection: The National the Natural Resources Conservation Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is Service in assessing environmental DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE responsible for conducting the Census benefits associated with implementation of Agriculture under the authority of the of various conservation programs and Submission for OMB Review; Census of Agriculture Act of 1997, installation of associated conservation Comment Request Public Law 105–113. The census of practices. The authority for these data agriculture is required by law every five collection activities is granted under August 17, 2011. years and is the primary source of U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204. The Department of Agriculture has statistics concerning the nation’s Need and Use of the Information: The submitted the following information agricultural industry. It provides the survey will utilize personal interviews collection requirement(s) to OMB for only basis of consistent, comparable to administer a questionnaire that is review and clearance under the data throughout the more than 3,000 designed to obtain from farm operators Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, counties in the 50 States and Puerto field-specific data associated with Public Law 104–13. Comments Rico. For the outlying areas of American selected National Resources Inventory regarding (a) whether the collection of Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern sub-sample units in the contiguous 48 information is necessary for the proper Mariana Islands, Guam and U.S. Virgin States. Data collected in this survey will performance of the functions of the Islands, it is the only source of be used in conjunction with previously agency, including whether the consistent, comparable agricultural data. information will have practical utility; collected data on soils, climate, and Need and Use of the Information: The cropping history. The assessment will (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate data collection for the censuses of of burden including the validity of the be used to report progress annually on agriculture will be conducted primarily Farm Bill implementation to Congress methodology and assumptions used; (c) by mail-out/mail-back procedures and ways to enhance the quality, utility and and the general public. direct enumeration methods for Guam, Description of Respondents: Farms. clarity of the information to be the U.S. Virgin Islands and Number of Respondents: 2,451. collected; (d) ways to minimize the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Frequency of Responses: Reporting: burden of the collection of information Islands. The census provides data on the Annually. on those who are to respond, including number and types of farms, land use, Total Burden Hours: 2,251. through the use of appropriate crop area and selected production, automated, electronic, mechanical, or livestock inventory and sales, Charlene Parker, other technological collection production contracts, production Departmental Information Collection techniques or other forms of information expenses, farm-related income, and Clearance Officer. technology should be addressed to: Desk other demographic characteristics. This [FR Doc. 2011–21360 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Officer for Agriculture, Office of information will serve as the basis for BILLING CODE 3410–20–P Information and Regulatory Affairs, many agriculturally-based decisions. Office of Management and Budget Census information is used by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Administration, Congress, and the Washington, DC; _ Federal Agencies to formulate and Forest Service OIRA [email protected] or evaluate national agricultural programs fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental and policy, by the Department of Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Flathead Resource Advisory Agriculture and the Bureau of Economic Committee Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250– analysis to compile farm sector 7602. Comments regarding these economic indicators, and by State and AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. information collections are best assured county governments in the development ACTION: Notice of meetings. of having their full effect if received of local agricultural programs. SUMMARY: within 30 days of publication of this Description of Respondents: Farms; The Flathead Resource notification. Copies of the submission(s) Individuals or households. Advisory Committee will meet in may be obtained by calling (202) 720– Number of Respondents: 4,237,100. Kalispell, Montana. The committee is 8681. Frequency of Responses: Reporting: meeting as authorized under the Secure An agency may not conduct or Other (Every 5 years). Rural Schools and Community Self- sponsor a collection of information Total Burden Hours: 2,545,498. Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) unless the collection of information and in compliance with the Federal displays a currently valid OMB control National Agricultural Statistics Service Advisory Committee Act. The purpose number and the agency informs Title: Conservation Effects of the meeting is to hear project potential persons who are to respond to Assessment Project. proposal presentations for 2012.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

DATES: The meetings will be held September 16, 2011, at 9 a.m. in Coeur Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250– September 6, 13, 20 and 27, 2011. Each d’Alene, Idaho for a business meeting. 2024. meeting will be held 5–8 p.m. The business meeting is open to the • Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at public. deliver to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of 650 Wolfpack Way, Flathead National DATES: September 16, 2011. Forest Office, Kalispell, MT. Written Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, ADDRESSES: The meeting location is the comments should be sent to Flathead 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Idaho Panhandle National Forests’ Washington, DC 20250–2024. National Forest, Attn: RAC, 650 Supervisor’s Office, located at 3815 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, MT 59901. Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho Comments may also be sent via e-mail 83815. Joseph T. Reilly, Associate to [email protected] or via facsimile to Administrator, National Agricultural 406–758–5351. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Statistics Service, U.S. Department of All comments, including names and Maggie Pittman, Acting Forest Agriculture, (202) 720–4333. addresses when provided, are placed in Supervisor and Designated Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the record and are available for public Official, at (208) 765–7369. Title: Agricultural Resources inspection and copying. The public may SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Management Survey and Chemical Use inspect comments received at 650 meeting agenda will focus on reviewing Surveys. Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, MT. Visitors proposals for forest projects and OMB Control Number: 0535–0218. are encouraged to call ahead to 406– recommending funding during the Expiration Date of Approval: 758–6485 to facilitate entry into the business meeting. December 31, 2011. building. Dated: August 16, 2011. Type of Request: Intent to revise and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Pittman, extend a currently approved Craig Kendall, Flathead National Forest, Acting Forest Supervisor. information collection for a period of 406.758.6485. three years. [FR Doc. 2011–21345 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Abstract: The Agricultural Resource Individuals who use BILLING CODE 3410–11–P telecommunication devices for the deaf Management Surveys (ARMS) are the (TDD) may call the Federal Information primary source of information for the Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S. Department of Agriculture on a between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern broad range of issues related to: Standard Time, Monday through Friday. National Agricultural Statistics Service Production practices, costs and returns, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The pest management, chemical usage, and meeting is open to the public. The Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To contractor expenses. Data is collected on following business will be conducted: Revise and Extend a Currently both a whole farm level and on selected presentation of project proposals and Approved Information Collection commodities. approval of projects. Persons who wish ARMS is the only source of AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics information available for objective to bring related matters to the attention Service, USDA. of the Committee may file written evaluation of many critical issues ACTION: Notice and request for related to agriculture and the rural statements with the Committee staff comments. before or after the meeting. Public input economy, such as: Whole farm finance data, including data sufficient to sessions will be provided and SUMMARY: In accordance with the construct estimates of income for farms individuals who made written requests Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this by three calendar days prior to the by type of operation, loan commodities, notice announces the intention of the income for operator households, credit, meeting will have the opportunity to National Agricultural Statistics Service address the Comittee at those sessions. structure, and organization; marketing (NASS) to request revision and information, and other economic data Dated: August 15, 2011. extension of a currently approved on input usage, production practices, Chip Weber, information collection, the Agricultural and crop substitution possibilities. Data Forest Supervisor, Flathead National Forest. Resources Management Survey and from ARMS are used to produce Chemical Use Surveys. Revision to [FR Doc. 2011–21344 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] estimates of net farm income by type of burden hours may be needed due to BILLING CODE 3410–11–P commercial producer as required in 7 changes in the size of the target U.S.C. 7998 and estimates of enterprise population, sampling design, and/or production costs as required in 7 U.S.C. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE questionnaire length. 1441(a). Data from ARMS are also used DATES: Comments on this notice must be as weights in the development of the Forest Service received by October 21, 2011 to be Prices Paid Index, a component of the assured of consideration. Parity Index referred to in the Notice of Idaho Panhandle Resource ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Advisory Committee Meeting identified by docket number 0535–0235, These indexes are used to calculate the AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. by any of the following methods: annual Federal grazing fee rates as • ACTION: Notice of meeting. E-mail: [email protected]. described in the Public Rangelands Include docket number above in the Improvement Act of 1978 and Executive SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in subject line of the message. Order 12,548 and as promulgated in the Federal Advisory Committee Act • Fax: (202) 720–6396. regulations found at 36 CFR 222.51. (Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure • Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD– In addition, ARMS is used to produce Rural Schools and Community Self- ROM submissions to: David Hancock, estimates of sector-wide production Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110– NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. expenditures and other components of 343) the Idaho Panhandle Resource Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 income that are used in constructing the Advisory Committee will meet Friday, South Building, 1400 Independence estimates of income and value-added

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52305

which are transmitted to the U.S. Comments: Comments are invited on: of providing loans to ultimate recipients Department of Commerce, Bureau of (a) Whether the proposed collection of for the preservation and revitalization of Economic Analysis, by the USDA information is necessary for the proper low income Sections 515, 514 and 516 Economic Research Service (ERS) for performance of the functions of the MFH as affordable housing. use in constructing economy-wide agency, including whether the DATES: The deadline for receipt of all estimates of Gross Domestic Product. information will have practical utility; applications in response to this Notice This transmittal of data, prepared using (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate is 5 p.m., Eastern Time, September 21, the ARMS, is undertaken to satisfy a of the burden of the proposed collection 2011. The application closing deadline 1956 agreement between the Office of of information including the validity of is firm as to date and hour. Rural Management and Budget and the the methodology and assumptions used; Development will not consider any Departments of Agriculture and (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, application that is received after the Commerce that a single set of estimates and clarity of the information to be closing deadline. Applicants intending be published on farm income. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the to mail applications must provide Chemical Use Surveys: Congress has burden of the collection of information sufficient time to permit delivery on or mandated that NASS and ERS build on those who are to respond, through before the closing deadline. Acceptance nationally coordinated databases on the use of appropriate automated, by a post office or private mailer does agricultural chemical use and related electronic, mechanical, technological or not constitute delivery. Facsimile, farm practices; these databases are the other forms of information technology electronic transmissions and postage primary vehicles used to produce collection methods. All responses to due applications will not be accepted. specified environmental and economic this notice will become a matter of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: estimates. The surveys will help provide public record and be summarized in the Sherry Engel, Financial and Loan the knowledge and technical means for request for OMB approval. Analyst, Multi-Family Housing, U.S. producers and researchers to address Signed at Washington, DC, on July 27, Department of Agriculture, Rural on-farm environmental concerns in a 2011. Housing Service, 4949 Kirschling Court, manner that maintains agricultural Joseph T. Reilly, Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481 or productivity. Associate Administrator. Timothy James, Financial and Loan Authority: These data will be [FR Doc. 2011–21361 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Analyst, Multi-Family Housing, STOP collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. BILLING CODE 3410–20–P 0781 (Room 1263–S), U.S. Department 2204(a). Individually identifiable data of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service, collected under this authority are 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., governed by section 1770 of the Food DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington, DC 20250–0781 or by Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, telephone at: (715) 345–7677 or (202) which requires USDA to afford strict Rural Housing Service 720–1610, TDD (302) 857–3585 or via confidentiality to non-aggregated data e-mail at: [email protected] or Notice of Funding Availability: Section provided by respondents. This Notice is [email protected]. (Please 515 Multi-Family Housing Preservation submitted in accordance with the note the phone numbers are not toll free Revolving Loan Fund (PRLF) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 numbers.) Public Law 104–13 (at 44 U.S.C. 3501, Demonstration Program for Fiscal Year SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: et seq.) and Office of Management and 2011 Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. Paperwork Reduction Act NASS also complies with OMB ACTION: Notice. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, Implementation Guidance, 44 U.S.C. 3501 (2005) et seq., the Office ‘‘Implementation Guidance for Title V SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service of of Management and Budget (OMB) must of the E-Government Act, Confidential Rural Development previously approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ Information Protection and Statistical announced the availability of funds and by Rural Development. The Act defines Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),’’ the timeframe to submit applications for ‘‘collection of information’’ as a Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June loans to private non-profit requirement for ‘‘answers to * * * 15, 2007, p. 33362. organizations, and State and local identical reporting or recordkeeping Estimate of Burden: Public reporting housing finance agencies, to carry out a requirements imposed on ten or more burden for this collection of information demonstration program to provide persons * * *.’’ (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)) is estimated to average approximately revolving loans for the preservation and Because this Notice is expected to 35 minutes per survey. revitalization of low-income Multi- receive less than 10 respondents, the Respondents: Farmers, ranchers, farm Family Housing (MFH) in a Notice Paperwork Reduction Act does not managers, farm contractors, and farm published November 9, 2010 (75 FR apply. households. 68748). Rural Development did not Estimated Number of Respondents: receive sufficient applications to use all Programs Affected Approximately 85,000 respondents will available funds. As a result, Rural This program is listed in the Catalog be sampled each year. Over half of these Development is soliciting additional of Federal Domestic Assistance under respondents will be contacted more applications under this Notice. Housing Number 10.415. than one time in a single year. that is assisted by this demonstration Estimated Total Annual Burden on program must be financed by Rural Overview Respondents: Approximately 73,000 Development through its MFH loan The Agriculture, Rural Development, hours per year. program under Sections 515, 514 and Food and Drug Administration, and Copies of this information collection 516 of the Housing Act of 1949. The Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and related instructions can be obtained goals of this demonstration program will 2010 (Pub. L. 111–80), October 21, 2009 without charge from the NASS be achieved through loans made to provided funding for, and authorized Clearance Officer, at (202) 690–2388 or intermediaries. The intermediaries will Rural Development to, establish a at: [email protected]. establish their programs for the purpose revolving loan fund demonstration

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52306 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

program for the preservation and interest rate of no more than one percent responsible for providing such revitalization of the Sections 515, 514 and the Secretary of Agriculture may information to Rural Development. and 516 MFH portfolio. The Department defer the interest and principal payment (iii) A staff with loan making and of Defense and Full Years Continuing to Rural Development for up to three servicing experience. Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112– years during the first three years of the (iv) A plan showing Rural 10) April 15, 2011, continued the loan. The term of such loans shall not Development, that the ultimate authority and provided funding for the exceed 30 years. Funding priority will recipients will only use the funds to revolving loan fund demonstration be given to entities with equal or greater preserve low-income MFH projects. program. Sections 514, 515 and 516 of matching funds from third parties, (c) No loans will be extended to an the Housing Act of 1949 as amended, including housing tax credits for rural intermediary unless: provides Rural Development the housing assistance and to entities with (i) There is adequate assurance of authority to make loans for low income experience in the administration of repayment of the loan evidenced by the MFH, farm labor housing, and related revolving loan funds and the fiscal and managerial capabilities of the facilities. preservation of MFH. proposed intermediary. (ii) The amount of the loan, together Program Administration Funding Restrictions with other funds available, is adequate I. Funding Opportunities Description No loan made to a single intermediary to complete the preservation or revitalization of the project. This Notice requests applications applicant under this demonstration program may exceed $2,125,000 and (iii) The intermediary’s prior calendar from eligible applicants for loans to year audit is an unqualified audited establish and operate revolving loan any such loan may be limited by geographic area so that multiple loan opinion signed by an independent funds for the preservation of low- certified public accountant acceptable to income MFH properties within the recipients are not providing similar services to the same service areas. All the Agency and performed in Rural Development Sections 515, 514 accordance with Generally Accepted and 516 MFH portfolios. Rural PRLF loan obligations will expire two years after the date of obligation. Government Auditing Standards Development’s regulations for the (GAGAS). The unqualified audited Prior fiscal years PRLF loan Section 514, 515 and 516 MFH Program opinion must provide a statement obligations not closed within the above are published at 7 CFR Part 3560. relating to the accuracy of the financial two-year obligation period must be de- Housing that is constructed or statements. repaired must meet the Rural obligated to allow more immediate (d) Intermediaries, and the principals Development design and construction program use unless a six-month of the intermediaries, must not be standards and the development extension is granted by the National suspended, debarred, or excluded based standards contained in 7 CFR Part 1924, Office. The request for an extension will on the ‘‘List of Parties Excluded from Subparts A and C, respectively. Once be sent to the National Office by the Federal Procurement and constructed, Section 514, 515, and 516 relevant State Office. Nonprocurement Programs’’. In MFH must be managed in accordance Loans made to the PRLF ultimate addition, intermediaries and their with the program’s regulation, 7 CFR recipient must meet the intent of principals must not be delinquent on Part 3560. Tenant eligibility is limited to providing decent, safe, and sanitary Federal debt or be Federal judgment persons who qualify as a very low-, or rural housing and be consistent with the debtors. low-income, household or who are requirements of Title V of the Housing (e) The intermediary and its principal eligible under the requirements Act of 1949, as amended. officers (including immediate family) established to qualify for housing III. Eligibility Information must have no legal or financial interest benefits provided by sources other than in the ultimate recipient. Rural Development, such as U.S. Applicant Eligibility (f) The intermediary’s Debt Service Department of Housing and Urban (1) Eligibility Requirements— Coverage Ratio (DSCR) must be greater Development Section 8 assistance or Intermediary than 1.25 for the fiscal year immediately Low Income Housing Tax Credit prior to the year of application. The assistance, when a tenant receives such (a) The types of entities which may DSCR is the financial ratio the loan housing benefits. Additional tenant become intermediaries are private non- committee will use to determine an eligibility requirements are contained in profit organizations, which may include applicant’s capacity to borrow and 7 CFR 3560.152, 3560.577, and faith and community based service additional debt. 3560.624. organizations, and State and local The loan committee will use the housing finance agencies. intermediary’s Earnings Before Interest II. Award Information (b) The intermediary must have: and Taxes (EBIT) to determine DSCR. The Act made funding available for (i) The legal authority necessary for EBIT is determined by adding net loans to private non-profit carrying out the proposed loan purposes income or net loss to depreciation and organizations, or such non-profit and for obtaining, giving security, and interest expense. The loan committee organizations’ affiliate loan funds and repaying the proposed loan. will compare the principal and interest State and local housing finance (ii) A proven record of successfully payment multiplied by the DSCR to the agencies, to carry out a housing assisting low-income Multi-Family EBIT derived from the applicants demonstration program to provide Housing projects. Such record will consolidated income statement. For revolving loans for the preservation of include recent experience in loan example, if an applicant requests a loan low income MFH project. The total making and loan servicing that is amount of $2,000,000 at a one percent amount of funding available for this similar in nature to the loans proposed interest rate amortized over 30 years, the program is $7,038,926.76. This funding for the PRLF demonstration program. principal and interest payments will be is a combination of carryover from The applicant must provide $77,193, annually. Therefore, an previous fiscal years and FY 2011 funds. documentation of a delinquency and applicant who requests $2,000,000 Loans to intermediaries under this loss rate not which does not exceed four needs an EBIT of at least $96,491.00 demonstration program shall have an percent. The applicant will be ($77,193 × 1.25). Only debt service from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52307

unrestricted revolving loans will be PRLF. PRLF loan funds may not be used intermediary has more than one PRLF considered in the above calculation. An to satisfy the delinquency. from Rural Development, a separate unrestricted loan is an account in which (c) The ultimate recipient cannot be report shall be made for each PRLF. the accumulated revenues are not currently debarred or suspended from (C) The performance reports will dictated by a donor or sponsor. Federal Government programs. include OMB Standard Form 269, (g) Intermediaries that have received (d) There is a continuous need for the Financial Status Report and OMB one or more PRLF loans may apply for property in the community as affordable Standard Form 272, Federal Cash and be considered for subsequent PRLF housing. Transaction Report. These reports will provide information on the loans provided all the following are met: Other Administrative Requirements (i) For prior PRLF loans at least 50 intermediary’s lending activity, income percent of an intermediary’s PRLF loans (1) The following policies and and expenses, financial condition and a must have been disbursed to eligible regulations apply to loans to summary of names and characteristics ultimate recipients; intermediaries made in response to this of the ultimate recipients the (ii) Intermediaries requesting Notice: intermediary has financed. subsequent loans must meet the (a) PRLF intermediaries will be (iii) Annual proposed budget for the requirements of section III (1) of this required to provide Rural Development following year; and other reports as NOTICE; with the following reports: Rural Development may require from (iii) The delinquency rate of the (i) An annual audit; time to time regarding the conditions of outstanding loans of the intermediary’s (A) The dates of the audit report the loan. PRLF revolving fund does not exceed 4 period need not coincide with other (b) Security will consist of a pledge by percent at the time of application for the reports on the PRLF. Audit reports shall the intermediary of all assets now or subsequent loan; be due 90 days following the audit hereafter placed in the PRLF, including (iv) The intermediary is in period. The audit period will be set by cash and investments, notes receivable compliance with all applicable the intermediary. The intermediary will from ultimate recipients, and the regulations and its loan agreements with notify Rural Development of the date. intermediary’s security interest in Rural Development; Audits must cover all of the collateral pledged by ultimate (v) Subsequent loans will not exceed intermediary’s activities. Audits will be recipients. Except for good cause $1 million each and not more than one performed by an independent certified shown, Rural Development will not loan will be approved by Rural public accountant. An acceptable audit obtain assignments of specific assets at Development for an intermediary in any will be performed in accordance with the time a loan is made to an single fiscal year unless the request is GAGAS and include such tests of the intermediary or ultimate recipient. The authorized by a PRLF appropriation; accounting records as the auditor intermediary will covenant in the loan and considers necessary in order to express agreement that, in the event the (vi) Total outstanding PRLF an unqualified audited opinion on the intermediary’s financial condition indebtedness of an intermediary to financial condition of the intermediary. deteriorates or the intermediary takes Rural Development will not exceed $15 (B) It is not intended that audits action detrimental to prudent fund million at any time. required by this program be separate operation or fails to take action required Only eligible applicants will be from audits performed in accordance of a prudent lender, the intermediary scored and ranked. Funding priority with State and local laws or for other will provide additional security, execute will be given to entities with equal or purposes. To the extent feasible, the any additional documents, and greater matching funds, including audit work for this program should be undertake any reasonable acts Rural housing tax credits for rural housing done in connection with these other Development may request to protect assistance. Refer to the Selection audits. Intermediaries covered by OMB Rural Development’s interest or to Criteria section of the Notice for further Circular A–133 should submit audits perfect a security interest in any asset, information on funding priorities. made in accordance with that circular. including physical delivery of assets (2) Eligibility requirements—Ultimate (ii) Quarterly or semiannual and specific assignments to Rural recipients. performance reports (due to Rural Development. All debt instruments and (a) To be eligible to receive loans from Development 30 days after the end of collateral documents used by an the PRLF, ultimate recipients must: the fiscal quarter or half); intermediary in connection with loans (i) Currently have a Rural (A) Performance reports will be to ultimate recipients may be assignable. Development Section 515, 514 loans, or required quarterly during the first year (c) RHS may consider, on a case by 516 grant for the property to be assisted after loan closing. Thereafter, case basis, subordinating its security by the PRLF demonstration program. performance reports will be required interest on the ultimate recipient’s (ii) Certify that the principal officers semiannually. Also, Rural Development property to the lien of the intermediary (including their immediate family) of may resume requiring quarterly reports so that Rural Development has a junior the ultimate recipient, hold no legal or if the intermediary becomes delinquent lien interest when an independent financial interest in the intermediary. in repayment of its loan or otherwise appraisal verifies the Rural (iii) Be in compliance with all Rural fails to fully comply with the provisions Development subordinated lien will Development programs and civil rights of its workout plan or Loan Agreement, continue to be fully secured. requirements or have an Agency or Rural Development determines that (d) The term of the loan to an ultimate approved workout plan in place which the intermediary’s PRLF is not recipient may not exceed the less of 30 will correct a non-compliance status. adequately protected by the current years or the remaining term of the Rural (b) Any delinquent debt to the Federal financial status and paying capacity of Development loan. Government including a non-tax the ultimate recipients. (e) When loans are made to ultimate judgment lien (other than a judgment in (B) These performance reports shall recipients restrictive-use provisions the U.S. tax courts), by the ultimate contain information only on the PRLF, must be incorporated, as outlined in 7 recipient or any of its principals, shall or if other funds are included, the PRLF CFR Section 3560.662. cause the proposed ultimate recipient to portion shall be segregated from the (f) The policies and regulations be ineligible to receive a loan from the others; and in the case where the contained in 7 CFR Part 1901, Subpart

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52308 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

F regarding historical and within the two year period. Rural (B) Loan purposes; archaeological properties apply to all Development, at its sole discretion, may (C) Interest rate and term; loans funded under this Notice. allow the intermediary additional time (D) Location, nature, and scope of the (g) The policies and regulations to use the loan funds by delaying project being financed; contained in 7 CFR Part 1940, Subpart cancellation of the funds by not more (E) Other funding included in the G (and any successor regulation) than three additional years. If any loan project; regarding environmental assessments funds have not been used by five years (F) Nature and lien priority of the apply to all loans to ultimate recipients from the date of the loan agreement, the collateral; and funded under this Notice. Loans to approval will be canceled for any funds (G) Environmental impacts of this intermediaries under this program will that have not been delivered to the action. This will include an original be considered a categorical exclusion intermediary and the intermediary will Form RD 1940–20, ‘‘Request for under the National Environmental return, as an extra payment on the loan, Environmental Information,’’ completed Policy Act, requiring the completion of any funds it has received and not used and signed by the intermediary. Form RD 1940–22, ‘‘Environmental in accordance with the workout plan. In Attached to this form will be a Checklist for Categorical Exclusions,’’ accordance with the Rural Development statement stipulating the age of the by Rural Development. approved promissory note, regular loan building to be rehabilitated and a (h) An Intergovernmental Review,’’ payments will be based on the amount completed and signed Federal will be conducted in accordance with of funds actually drawn by the Emergency Management Agency the procedures contained in 7 CFR part intermediary. (FEMA) Form 81–93, ‘‘Standard Flood 3015, subpart V, if the applicant is a (e) The intermediary will be required Hazard Determination.’’ If the age of the cooperative. to enter into a Rural Development building is over 50 years or if the (2) The intermediary agrees to the approved loan agreement and building is either on or eligible for following: promissory note. The intermediary will inclusion in the National Register of (a) To obtain written Rural receive a 30-year loan at a one percent Historic Places, then the intermediary Development approval, before the first interest rate. The loan will be deferred will immediately contact Rural lending of PRLF funds to an ultimate for up to three years if requested in the Development to begin Section 106 of the recipient, of: intermediary’s work plan. National Historic Preservation Act of (i) All forms to be used for relending (f) Loans made to the PRLF ultimate 1966 consultation with the State purposes, including application forms, recipient must meet the intent of Historic Preservation Officer. If the loan agreements, promissory notes, and providing decent, safe, and sanitary building is located within a 100-year security instruments; and rural housing by preserving and flood plain, then the intermediary will (ii) The intermediary’s policy with regulating existing properties financed immediately contact Rural Development regard to the amount and form of with 514, 515, and 516 funds. They to analyze any effects as outlined in 7 security to be required. must also be consistent with the CFR part 1940, Subpart G, Exhibit C. (b) To obtain written approval from requirements of Title V of the Housing The intermediary will assist Rural Rural Development before making any Act of 1949, as amended. Development in any additional significant changes in forms, security (g) When an intermediary proposes to requirements necessary to complete the policy, or the intermediary’s workout make a loan from the PRLF to an environmental review. plan. Rural Development may approve ultimate recipient, Rural Development (ii) Such other information as Rural changes in forms, security policy, or concurrence is required prior to final Development may request on specific workout plans at any time upon a approval of the loan. The intermediary cases. written request from the intermediary must submit a request for Rural (h) Upon receipt of a request for and determination by Rural Development concurrence of a proposed concurrence in a loan to an ultimate Development that the change will not loan to an ultimate recipient. Such recipient Rural Development will: jeopardize repayment of the loan or request must include: (i) Review the material submitted by violate any requirement of this Notice or (i) Certification by the intermediary the intermediary for consistency with other Rural Development regulations. that: Rural Development’s preservation and The intermediary must comply with the (A) The proposed ultimate recipient is revitalization principles which include workout plan approved by Rural eligible for the loan; the following; Development so long as any portion of (B) The proposed loan is for eligible (A) There is a continuing need for the the intermediary’s PRLF loan is purposes; property in the community as affordable outstanding; (C) The proposed loan complies with housing. If Rural Development (c) To allow Rural Development to all applicable statutes and regulations; determines there is no continuing need take a security interest in the PRLF, the and for the property the ultimate recipient is intermediary’s portfolio of investments (D) Prior to closing the loan to the ineligible for the loan; derived from the proceeds of the loan ultimate recipient, the intermediary and (B) When the transaction is complete, award, and other rights and interests as its principal officers (including the property will be owned and Rural Development may require; immediate family) hold no legal or controlled by eligible Section 514, 515, (d) To return, as an extra payment on financial interest in the ultimate or 516 borrowers; the loan any funds that have not been recipient, and the ultimate recipient and (C) The transaction will address the used in accordance with the its principal officers (including physical needs of the property; intermediary’s workout plan by a date immediate family) hold no legal or (D) Existing tenants will not be two years from the date of the loan financial interest in the intermediary. displaced because of increased post- agreement. The intermediary (ii) Copies of sufficient material from transaction rents; acknowledges that Rural Development the ultimate recipient’s application and (E) Post-transaction basic rents will may cancel the approval of any funds the intermediary’s related files, to allow not exceed comparable market rents; not yet delivered to the intermediary if Rural Development to determine the: and funds have not been used in accordance (A) Name and address of the ultimate (F) Any equity loan amount will be with the intermediary’s workout plan recipient; supported by a market value appraisal.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52309

(ii) The Intermediary shall pledge as date must de-obligate PRLF funds to include well developed targeting criteria collateral for non-Rural Development allow further program use of funds. for ultimate recipients consistent with funds its PRLF Revolving Fund, the intermediary’s mission and strategy Application Requirements including its portfolio of investments for this demonstration program, along derived from the proceeds of other The application must contain the with supporting statistical or narrative funds and this loan award. following: evidence that such prospective (iii) Issue a letter concurring with the (1) A summary page, that is double- recipients exist in sufficient numbers to loan when all requirements have been spaced and not in narrative form, that justify Rural Development funding of met or notify the intermediary in lists the following items: the loan request; writing the reasons for denial when (a) Applicant’s name. (d) Include a list of proposed fees and Rural Development determines it is (b) Applicant’s Taxpayer other charges it will assess to the unable to concur with the loan. Identification Number. ultimate recipients; (c) Applicant’s address. (e) Provide documentation to Rural IV. Application and Submission (d) Applicant’s telephone number. Development the intermediary has Information (e) Name of applicant’s contact secured commitments of significant person, telephone number, and address. Submission Address financial support from public agencies (f) Amount of loan requested. and private organizations or have Applications should be submitted to (2) Form RD 4274–1, Application for received tax credits for the calendar year U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Loan (Intermediary Relending prior to this Notice; Housing Service; Attention: Timothy Program).’’ This form can be found at: (f) Include the intermediary’s plan James, Financial and Loan Analyst, http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/ (specific loan purposes) for relending Multi-Family Housing STOP 0781 efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/ the loan funds. The plan must be of (Room 1263–S), U.S. Department of RD4274–1.PDF. sufficient detail to provide Rural Agriculture, Rural Housing Service, (3) A written workout plan and other Development with a complete 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., evidence Rural Development require understanding of what the intermediary Washington, DC 20250–0781. that demonstrates the feasibility of the will accomplish by lending the funds to The application process is a two step intermediary’s program to meet the the ultimate recipient and the complete process: First, all applicants will submit objectives of this demonstration mechanics of how the funds will flow proposals to the National Office for loan program. The plan must, at a minimum: from the intermediary to the ultimate committee review. The initial loan (a) Document the intermediary’s recipient. The service area, eligibility committee will determine if the ability to administer this demonstration criteria, loan purposes, fees, rates, borrower is eligible, score the program in accordance with the terms, collateral requirements, limits, application, and rank the applicants provisions of this Notice. In order to priorities, application process, method according to the criteria established in adequately demonstrate the ability to of disposition of the funds to the this Notice. Only eligible borrowers will administer the program, the ultimate recipient, monitoring of the be scored. The loan committee will intermediary must provide a complete ultimate recipient’s accomplishments, select proposals for further processing. listing of all personnel responsible for and reporting requirements by the In the event that a proposal is selected administering this program along with a ultimate recipient’s management must for further processing and the applicant statement of their qualifications and at least be addressed by the declines, the next highest ranked experience. The personnel may be either intermediary’s relending plan; unfunded applicant may be selected. members or employees of the (g) Provide a set of goals, strategies, Second, after the loan is obligated to intermediary’s organization or contract and anticipated outcomes for the the intermediary but prior to the loan personnel hired for this purpose. If the intermediary’s program. Outcomes closing, the State Office in the personnel are to be contracted for, the should be expressed in quantitative or applicant’s residence or State where the contract between the intermediary and observable terms such as low-income applicant will be doing its intermediary the entity providing such service will be housing complexes rehabilitated or low- work will provide written approval of submitted for Rural Development income housing units preserved, and all forms to be used for relending review, and the terms of the contract should relate to the purpose of this purposes, including application forms, and its duration must be sufficient to demonstration program; and loan agreements, promissory notes, and adequately service Rural Development (h) Providing technical assistance to security instruments. Additionally, the loan through to its ultimate conclusion. ultimate recipients is not required as State Office will provide written If Rural Development determines the part of this program. However if the approval of the applicant’s binding personnel lack the necessary expertise intermediary provides technical policy with regard to the amount and to administer the program, the loan assistance, the intermediary will form of security to be required. request will be denied; provide specific information as to how Once the loan closes, the applicant (b) Document the intermediary’s and what type of technical assistance will be required to comply with the ability to commit financial resources the intermediary will provide to the terms of its work plan which describes under the control of the intermediary to ultimate recipients and potential how the money will be used, the loan the establishment of the demonstration ultimate recipients. For instance agreement, the promissory note and any program. This should include a describe the qualifications of the other loan closing documents. At the statement of the sources of non-Rural technical assistance providers, the time of loan closing, Rural Development Development funds for administration nature of technical assistance that will and loan recipient shall enter into a loan of the intermediary’s operations and be available, and expected and agreement and a promissory note financial assistance for projects; committed sources of funding for acceptable to Rural Development. Loans (c) Demonstrate a need for loan funds. technical assistance. If other than the obligated by State Offices to As a minimum, the intermediary should intermediary itself, describe the intermediaries must close on or before identify a sufficient number of proposed organizations providing such assistance the second anniversary of the obligation. and known ultimate recipients to justify and the arrangements between such Applicants who have not closed by this Agency funding of its loan request, or organizations and the intermediary.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52310 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

(4) A pro forma balance sheet at start- present earnings with the preparer of (iii) 50 percent or more of total up and projected balance sheets for at the intermediary’s financial statements. development costs—15 points. least three additional years; and (2) Intermediary contribution. The V. Application Review Information projected cash flow and earnings Intermediary will contribute its own statements for at least three years All applications will be evaluated by funds not derived from Rural supported by a list of assumptions a loan committee. The loan committee Development. The Non-Rural showing the basis for the projections. will make recommendations to the Development contributed funds will be The projected earnings statement and Rural Housing Service Administrator placed in a separate account from the balance sheet must include one set of concerning preliminary eligibility PRLF loan account. The intermediary projections that shows the PRLF must determinations and for the selection of shall contribute funds not derived from extend to include a year with a full applications for further processing Rural Development into a separate bank annual installment on the PRLF loan. based on the selection criteria contained account or accounts according to their (5) A written agreement of the in this Notice and the availability of ‘‘workout plan.’’ These funds are to be intermediary to Rural Development funds. The Administrator will inform placed into an interest bearing counter- agreeing to the audit requirements. applicants of the status of their signature-account for three years as set (6) Form RD 400–4, ‘‘Assurance application within 30 days of the loan forth in the loan agreement. The Agreement.’’ A copy of which can be application closing date set forth in this counter-signature-account will require a obtained at: http:// Notice. signature from a Rural Development forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/ Selection Criteria employee and intermediary. After three eFileServices/eForms/RD400–4.PDF. years, these funds shall be commingled (7) Complete organizational Selection criteria points will be with the PRLF to provide loans to the documents, including evidence of allowed only for factors evidenced by ultimate recipient for the preservation authority to conduct the proposed well documented, reasonable plans and revitalization of Section 515 Multi- activities. which provide assurance that the items Family Housing. (8) Most recent unqualified audit have a high probability of being The amount of non-Agency derived report signed by a CPA and prepared in accomplished. The points awarded will funds contributed to the PRLF will accordance with GAGAS. be as specified in paragraphs (1) through equal the following percentage of Rural (9) Form RD 1910–11, Applicant (4) of this section. In each case, the Development PRLF loan: Certification Federal Collection Policies intermediary’s application must provide (a) At least 5 percent but less than 15 for Consumer or Commercial Debts.’’ A documentation that the selection criteria percent—15 points; copy of which can be obtained at: have been met in order to qualify for (b) At least 15 percent but less than http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/ selection criteria points. If an 25 percent—30 points; or efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/ application does not cover one of the (c) 25 percent or more—50 points. RD1910–11.PDF. categories listed, it will not receive (3) Experience. The intermediary has (10) Form AD–1047, ‘‘Certification points for that criteria. Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and actual experience in the administration (1) Other funds. Points allowed under of revolving loan funds and the other Responsibility Matters—Primary this paragraph are to be based on Covered Transactions.’’ A copy of preservation of Multi-Family Housing, documented successful history or with a successful record, for the which can be obtained at: http:// written evidence that the funds are www.ocio.usda.gov/forms/doc/AD1047– following number of full years. available. Applicants must have actual experience F–01–92.PDF. (a) The intermediary will obtain non- (11) Exhibit A–1 of RD Instruction in both the administration of revolving Rural Development loan or grant funds 1940–Q, ‘‘Certification for Contracts, loan funds and the preservation of or provide housing tax credits Grants, and Loans.’’ A copy of which Multi-Family Housing in order to (measured in dollars) to pay part of the can be obtained at: http:// qualify for points under the selection cost of the ultimate recipients’ project www.rurdev.usda.gov/me/CBP/const/ criteria. If the number of years of cost. Points for the amount of funds 1940qa1.pdf. experience differs between the two from other sources are as follows: (12) Copies of the applicant’s tax types of above listed experience, the returns for each of the three years prior (i) At least 10 percent but less than 25 type of experience with the lesser to the year of application, and most percent of the total development cost (as number of years will be used for the recent audited financial statements. defined in 7 CFR part 3560 Section selection criteria. (13) A separate one-page information 3560.11)—5 points; (a) At least one but less than three sheet listing each of the ‘‘Selection (ii) At least 25 percent but less than years—5 points; Criteria’’ contained in this Notice, 50 percent of the total development (b) At least three but less than five followed by the page numbers of all cost—10 points; or years—10 points; relevant material and documentation (iii) 50 percent or more of the total (c) At least five but less than 10 that is contained in the proposal that development cost—15 points. years—20 points; or supports these criteria. Applicants are (b) The intermediary will provide (d) 10 or more years—30 points. also encouraged, but not required; to loans to each ultimate recipient from its (4) The DER is the financial ratio used include a checklist of all of the own funds (not loan or grant) to pay part to determine how much debt an application requirements and to have of the ultimate recipients’ project cost. applicant has relative to its equity. DER their application indexed and tabbed to The amount of the intermediary’s own is calculated from the balance sheet by facilitate the review process. funds will average per project: adding the short term or current debt (14) Financial statements (i) At least 10 percent but less than 25 plus the long term debt, and then (consolidated or unconsolidated) for the percent of the total development costs— dividing that number by the year prior to this Notice. 5 points; intermediary’s equity. In order to (15) A borrower authorization (ii) At least 25 percent but less than receive points the intermediary must statement allowing Rural Development 50 percent of total development costs— submit a summary of how the DER was the authorization to verify past and 10 points; or calculated.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52311

(5) Administrative. The Administrator (3) The Rural Housing Service (RHS) Form Number(s): ITA–725P. may assign up to 25 additional points to Administrator will assure that equal OMB Control Number: 0625–0065. an application to account for the opportunity and nondiscrimination Type of Request: Regular submission following items not adequately covered requirements are met in accordance (revision and extension of a currently by the other priority criteria set out in with the Fair Housing Act, Title VI of approved information collection). this section. The items that will be the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Burden Hours: 600. considered are the amount of funds Credit Opportunity Act, the Age Number of Respondents: 30. requested in relation to the amount of Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Average Hours per Response: 20. Needs and Uses: Expanding the U.S. need; a particularly successful Order 12898, the Americans with exports is a national priority and affordable housing development record; Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the essential to improving U.S. trade a service area with no other PRLF Rehabilitation Act of 1973. performance. The Department of coverage; a service area with severe (4) All housing must meet the Commerce, International Trade accessibility requirements found at 7 affordable housing problems; a service Administration, U.S. Commercial area with emergency conditions caused CFR Section 3560.60(d). Service serves as the key U.S. by a natural disaster; an innovative (5) To file a complaint of government agency responsible for proposal; the quality of the proposed discrimination, write to USDA, promoting exports of goods and services program; economic development plan Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights from the United States and assisting from the local community, particularly Office of the Assistant Secretary for U.S. exporters in their dealings with a plan prepared as part of a request for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence foreign governments. an Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Avenue, SW., STOP 9410, Washington, The ‘‘E’’ Award Program was Community designation; or excellent DC 20250–9410, or call (866) 632–9992 established by Executive Order 10978 utilization of an existing revolving loan (English) or (800) 877–8339 (TDD) or (EO), to afford suitable recognition to fund program. The Administrator will (866) 377–8642 (English Federal-relay) persons, firms, or organizations that document the reasons for the particular or (800) 845–6136 (Spanish Federal- contribute significantly in the effort to point allocation. relay). USDA is an equal opportunity increase U.S. exports and to encourage provider, employer, and lender. The VI. Appeal Process U.S. companies to sell their products U.S. Department of Agriculture and services internationally. The EO All adverse determinations regarding prohibits discrimination in all its authorized the Secretary of Commerce, applicant eligibility and the awarding of programs and activities on the basis of in cooperation with the Secretary of the points as part of the selection process race, color, national origin, age, Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, are appealable. Instructions on the disability, and where applicable, sex, the Administrator of the Small Business appeal process will be provided at the marital status, familial status, parental Administration, and the heads of other time an applicant is notified of the status, religion, sexual orientation, Government departments and agencies, adverse action. genetic information, political beliefs, to establish procedures for the reprisal, or because all or part of an Equal Opportunity and nomination and the granting of awards. individual’s income is derived from any Nondiscrimination Requirements A second Presidential award, the ‘‘E public assistance program. (Not all Star’’ Award, was authorized by the (1) In accordance with the Fair prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Secretary of Commerce, to afford Housing Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Persons with disabilities who require continuing recognition of noteworthy Act of 1964, the Equal Credit alternative means for communication of export promotion efforts. Opportunity Act, the Age program information (Braille, large The application form is used to Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive print, audiotape, etc.) should contact determine eligibility for the ‘‘E’’ Award Order 12898, the Americans with USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720– and the ‘‘E Star’’ Award within Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the 2600 (voice and TDD). established criteria. In addition to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, neither the Dated: August 16, 2011. application form and written intermediary nor Rural Development Robert Lewis, justification, applicants can submit will discriminate against any employee, Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. supporting materials that show their proposed intermediary or proposed [FR Doc. 2011–21318 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] qualification for the respective awards, ultimate recipient on the basis of sex, although supporting materials are not BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P marital status, race, familial status, required. Examples of supporting color, religion, national origin, age, materials can include: Translated physical or mental disability (provided company and product literature; DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the proposed intermediary or proposed promotional materials; client impact ultimate recipient has the capacity to Submission for OMB Review; statements; or anything the company or contract), because all or part of the Comment Request organization deems relevant to its proposed intermediary’s or proposed qualification for the respective award. ultimate recipient’s income is derived The Department of Commerce will The ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘E Star’’ Awards are the from public assistance of any kind, or submit to the Office of Management and highest honors that our nation bestows because the proposed intermediary or Budget (OMB) for clearance the upon American exporters and proposed ultimate recipient has in good following proposal for collection of organizations that contribute to faith exercised any right under the information under the provisions of the exporting. These awards recognize firms Consumer Credit Protection Act, with Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. and organizations for their competitive respect to any aspect of a credit chapter 35). achievements in world markets, as well transaction anytime Rural Development Agency: International Trade as the benefits of their success to the loan funds are involved. Administration (ITA). U.S. economy. The purpose of this (2) The policies and regulations Title: Application for the President’s information collection is to determine contained in 7 CFR Part 1901, Subpart ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘E’’ Star Awards for Export the applicant’s eligibility to receive a E apply to this program. Expansion. Presidential award.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52312 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Respondents benefit from the Closed Session Committee advises the Office of the collection of this information because it 4. Discussion of matters determined to Assistant Secretary for Export affords them with recognition of their be exempt from the provisions relating Administration on implementation of exporting success from the U.S. to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. the Export Administration Regulations government; and can use this app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). (EAR) and provides for continuing recognition to further market themselves The open session will be accessible review to update the EAR as needed. and thereby increase business and via teleconference to 20 participants on Agenda reputation. a first come, first serve basis. To join the Affected Public: Business or other for- conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Public Session profit organizations. Yvette Springer at 1. Opening remarks by the Chairman. Frequency: Annually. [email protected] no later 2. Opening remarks by Bureau of Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. than September 7, 2011. A limited number of seats will be Industry and Security. OMB Desk Officer: Wendy Liberante, available during the public session of 3. Export Enforcement update. (202) 395–3647. the meeting. Reservations are not 4. Regulations update. Copies of the above information accepted. To the extent time permits, 5. Working group reports. collection proposal can be obtained by members of the public may present oral calling or writing Diana Hynek, statements to the Committee. The public 6. Automated Export System (AES) Departmental Paperwork Clearance may submit written statements at any update. Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of time before or after the meeting. 7. Presentation of papers or comments Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and However, to facilitate distribution of by the Public. Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, public presentation materials to DC 20230 (or via the Internet at Committee members, the Committee Closed Session [email protected]. suggests that presenters forward the 8. Discussion of matters determined to Written comments and public presentation materials prior to be exempt from the provisions relating recommendations for the proposed the meeting to Ms. Springer via e-mail. to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. information collection should be sent The Assistant Secretary for app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). within 30 days of publication of this Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, The open session will be accessible notice to Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk via teleconference to 20 participants on Officer, Fax number (202) 395–5167 or formally determined on October 15, 2010, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the a first come, first serve basis. To join the via the Internet at conference, submit inquiries to Ms. [email protected]. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ (10)(d)), Yvette Springer at Dated: August 16, 2011. that the portion of the meeting dealing [email protected] no later Gwellnar Banks, with matters the disclosure of portion of than September 6, 2011. Management Analyst, Office of the Chief the meeting dealing with matters the A limited number of seats will be Information Officer. disclosure of which would be likely to available for the public session. [FR Doc. 2011–21310 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] frustrate significantly implementation of Reservations are not accepted. To the BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P an agency action as described in extent that time permits, members of the 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt public may present oral statements to from the provisions relating to public the Committee. The public may submit DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate Bureau of Industry and Security §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the distribution of public presentation Transportation and Related the public. materials to the Committee members, Equipment; Technical Advisory For more information, call Yvette the Committee suggests that presenters Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Springer at (202) 482–2813. forward the public presentation Meeting Dated: August 15, 2011. materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer, Springer via e-mail. The Transportation and Related Committee Liaison Officer. The Assistant Secretary for Equipment Technical Advisory [FR Doc. 2011–21401 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Administration, with the concurrence of Committee will meet on September 14, BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P the delegate of the General Counsel, 2011, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. formally determined on February 9, Hoover Building, Room 3884, l4th Street 2011, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the between Constitution & Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (10)(d)), that Committee advises the Office of the Bureau of Industry and Security the portion of the meeting dealing with Assistant Secretary for Export matters the disclosure of which would Administration with respect to technical Regulations and Procedures Technical be likely to frustrate significantly questions that affect the level of export Advisory Committee; Notice of implementation of an agency action as controls applicable to transportation Partially Closed Meeting described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall and related equipment or technology. The Regulations and Procedures be exempt from the provisions relating Public Session Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. will meet September 13, 2011, 9 a.m., app. 2 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The 1. Welcome and Introductions. Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover remaining portions of the meeting will 2. Status Reports by Working Groups Building, 14th Street between be open to the public. Chairs. Constitution and Pennsylvania For more information, call Yvette 3. Public Comments/Proposals. Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Springer at (202) 482–2813.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52313

Dated: August 15, 2011. to deny the request, the Department is made timely requests, pursuant to 19 Yvette Springer, postponing the deadline for the CFR 351.205(e) and section 733(c)(1)(A) Committee Liaison Officer. preliminary determination in of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended [FR Doc. 2011–21403 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of (the Act), for a 50-day postponement of BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and the preliminary determinations in the (e) by 50 days to October 27, 2011. The investigations. The petitioner stated that deadline for the final determination will a postponement of these preliminary DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE continue to be 75 days after the date of determinations is necessary because of the preliminary determination unless the complexities of the investigations, International Trade Administration extended. the novelty of the issues raised, and [A–520–804] This notice is issued and published because the Department is still involved pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act in gathering and analyzing data from the Certain Steel Nails From the United and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). respondents. Arab Emirates: Postponement of Dated: August 15, 2011. Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Preliminary Determination of Christian Marsh, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within Antidumping Duty Investigation Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. which the preliminary determination AGENCY: Import Administration, must be made under subsection (b)(1), [FR Doc. 2011–21387 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] International Trade Administration, then the Department may postpone Department of Commerce. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P making the preliminary determination DATES: Effective Date: August 22, 2011. under subsection (b)(1) until not later FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE than the 190th day after the date on Michael A. Romani at (202) 482–0198, which the administering authority AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import International Trade Administration initiated the investigation. Therefore, Administration, International Trade because there are no compelling reasons [A–580–865, A–201–839] Administration, U.S. Department of to deny its requests, the Department is Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Bottom Mount Combination postponing the preliminary Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refrigerator-Freezers From the determinations in these investigations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Republic of Korea and Mexico: until October 26, 2011, which is Postponement of Preliminary 190 days from the date on which the Postponement of Preliminary Department initiated these Determination Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations investigations. On April 27, 2011, the Department of The deadline for the final Commerce (the Department) initiated AGENCY: Import Administration, determinations will continue to be the antidumping duty investigation on International Trade Administration, 75 days after the date of the preliminary nails from the United Arab Emirates. Department of Commerce. determinations, unless extended. See Certain Steel Nails From the United FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This notice is issued and published Arab Emirates: Initiation of Henry Almond (Republic of Korea) (202) pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act Antidumping Duty Investigation, 76 FR 482–0049 or David Goldberger (Mexico) and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 23559 (April 27, 2011). The notice of (202) 482–4136; AD/CVD Operations, Dated: August 16, 2011. initiation stated that the Department Office 2, Import Administration, Paul Piquado, would issue its preliminary International Trade Administration, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import determination for this investigation no U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Administration. later than 140 days after the issuance of Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., [FR Doc. 2011–21390 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] the initiation in accordance with section Washington DC 20230. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: amended (the Act), and 19 CFR Postponement of Preliminary 351.205(b)(1) unless postponed. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE On August 8, 2011, Mid Continent Determinations Nail Corporation (the petitioner) made a On April 19, 2011, the Department of International Trade Administration timely request pursuant to section Commerce (the Department) initiated [A–570–803] 733(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR antidumping duty investigations of 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for postponement imports of bottom mount combination Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., Axes & of the preliminary determination in this refrigerator-freezers from the Republic Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & investigation. The petitioner requested a of Korea (Korea) and Mexico. See Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) From 50-day postponement of the preliminary Bottom Mount Combination the People’s Republic of China: determination in order to allow the Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic Continuation of Antidumping Duty Department additional time to resolve a of Korea and Mexico: Initiation of Orders number of complex issues in this Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR investigation. 23281 (April 26, 2011). The notice of AGENCY: Import Administration, The petitioner submitted a request for initiation stated that we would issue our International Trade Administration, postponement of the preliminary preliminary determinations no later Department of Commerce. determination more than 25 days before than 140 days after the date of initiation. SUMMARY: As a result of the the scheduled date of the preliminary Currently, the preliminary determinations by the Department of determination. See 19 CFR 351.205(e). determinations in these investigations Commerce (‘‘Department’’) and the Therefore, because the petitioner are due on September 6, 2011. International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) provided reasons for its request and the On August 11, 2011, Whirlpool that revocation of the antidumping duty Department finds no compelling reasons Corporation (hereafter, the petitioner) orders on heavy forged hand tools (i.e.,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers painted, which may or may not be DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) finished, or which may or may not be (‘‘Hand Tools’’) from the People’s imported with handles; assorted bar International Trade Administration Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) would likely products and track tools including lead to continuation or recurrence of wrecking bars, digging bars, and Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of dumping and of material injury to an tampers; and steel wood splitting Scientific Instruments industry in the United States, the wedges. Hand Tools are manufactured Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Department is publishing a notice of through a hot forge operation in which Educational, Scientific and Cultural continuation of the antidumping duty steel is sheared to required length, Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. orders. heated to forging temperature, and L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– DATES: Effective Date: August 22, 2011. formed to final shape on forging 36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: equipment using dies specific to the invite comments on the question of Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD desired product shape and size. whether instruments of equivalent Operations, Import Administration, Depending on the product, finishing scientific value, for the purposes for International Trade Administration, operations may include shot blasting, which the instruments shown below are U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th grinding, polishing and painting, and intended to be used, are being Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., the insertion of handles for handled manufactured in the United States. Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) products. Hand Tools are currently Comments must comply with 15 CFR 482–0219. provided for under the following 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On be postmarked on or before September United States subheadings: 8205.20.60, January 3, 2011, the Department 12, 2011. Address written comments to 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. initiated the third sunset review of the Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room Specifically excluded from these orders antidumping duty orders on Hand Tools 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 from the PRC pursuant to section Washington, DC 20230. Applications kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, 751(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in amended (‘‘Act’’). See Initiation of Five- 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of length and under. The tariff Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 FR 89 Commerce in Room 3720. classifications are provided for (January 3, 2011). As a result of its Docket Number: 11–026. Applicant: convenience and customs purposes; review, the Department found that Purdue University, 745 Agriculture Mall however, the written description of the revocation of the antidumping duty Dr., West Lafayette, IN 47907. scope of the orders is dispositive. orders would likely lead to continuation Instrument: SPSx Moisture Sorption or recurrence of dumping and notified Continuation of the Orders Analyzer. Manufacturer: Projekt the ITC of the magnitude of the margins As a result of the determinations by Messtechnik, Germany. Intended Use: likely to prevail were the orders to be the Department and the ITC that The SPSx will be used to monitor the revoked. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools revocation of the antidumping duty water-solid interaction behavior of food (i.e., Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, orders would likely lead to continuation ingredients (both amorphous and Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & or recurrence of dumping and material crystalline) and blends of powdered Mattocks) From the People’s Republic of injury to an industry in the United food ingredients. The instrument China: Final Results of the Expedited States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of monitors water-solid interactions by Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty the Act, the Department hereby orders taking gravimetric measurement of Orders, 76 FR 24856 (May 3, 2011). the continuation of the antidumping samples continuously using a On August 10, 2011, the ITC duty orders on Hand Tools from the microbalance to monitor sample weight determined, pursuant to section 751(c) PRC. U.S. Customs and Border after exposure to the programmed of the Act, that revocation of the Protection will continue to collect relative humidity and temperature antidumping duty orders on Hand Tools antidumping duty cash deposits at the conditions. The SPSx is the leading from the PRC would likely lead to rates in effect at the time of entry for all instrument in monitoring multiple continuation or recurrence of material imports of subject merchandise. samples exposed to the same injury to an industry in the United The effective date of continuation of experimental conditions by use of a States. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools the orders will be the date of sampling wheel and enclosed top From China, 76 FR 50755 (August 16, publication in the Federal Register of weighing balance, allowing for the 2011), and USITC Publication 4250 this notice of continuation. Pursuant to measurement of up to 23 samples in a (August 2011), Heavy Forged Hand section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the single experimental protocol. A unique Tools from China: Investigation Nos. Department intends to initiate the next feature of this instrument is that it 731–TA–457–A–D (Third Review). five-year review of the orders no later monitors multiple samples at one time, Scope of the Orders than 30 days prior to the fifth ensuring that conditions do not vary anniversary of the effective date of from one experiment to the next. The products covered by these orders continuation. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are Hand Tools comprising the This five-year (sunset) review and this are no instruments of the same general following classes or kinds of notice are in accordance with sections category being manufactured in the merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 United States. Application accepted by with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); CFR 351.218(f)(4). Commissioner of Customs: March 23, (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track 2011. tools and wedges; (3) picks and Dated: August 16, 2011. mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes and Christian Marsh, Dated: August 16, 2011. similar hewing tools. Hand Tools Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Gregory Campbell, include heads for drilling hammers, Administration. Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Office. sledges, axes, mauls, picks and [FR Doc. 2011–21394 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2011–21391 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] mattocks, which may or may not be BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52315

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bainong, and Yantai Jinyan. On May 16, Final Rescission of NSR: Jining Yifa 2011, the Department issued a In the Preliminary Intent to Rescind, International Trade Administration supplemental questionnaire to Jining the Department analyzed the bona fides [A–570–831] Yifa. On May 18, 2011, Jining Yifa of Jining Yifa’s sales, and preliminarily informed the Department that it would found Jining Yifa’s sales to the United Fresh Garlic From the People’s not respond to the supplemental States to be not bona fide. In the Republic of China: Final Rescission of questionnaire. On May 19, 2011, the Preliminary Intent to Rescind, we stated New Shipper Reviews of Jining Yifa Department issued a supplemental that we would continue to gather Garlic Produce Co., Ltd., Shenzhen questionnaire to Shenzhen Bainong. On information with respect to this issue. Bainong Co., Ltd., and Yantai Jinyan June 9, 2011, Shenzhen Bainong filed its The Department subsequently issued a Trading Inc. response to our supplemental supplemental questionnaire to Jining questionnaire. No parties filed case AGENCY: Import Administration, Yifa; in response, Jining Yifa provided briefs with respect to Jining Yifa. Yantai International Trade Administration, a letter explaining that it would not Department of Commerce. Jinyan and Shenzhen Bainong timely respond. No party submitted briefs filed case briefs. The Fresh Garlic regarding Jining Yifa. SUMMARY: On May 3, 2011, the Producers Association and its Absent any new information on the Department of Commerce (Department) individual Members, Christopher Ranch record or arguments regarding Jining published a preliminary intent to LLC, The Garlic Company, Valley Yifa and the Preliminary Intent to rescind the new shipper reviews (NSRs) Garlic, and Vessey and Company Rescind, the Department continues to of fresh garlic from the People’s (collectively, Petitioners) timely filed find that the sales by Jining Yifa are not Republic of China (PRC) covering the rebuttal briefs separately addressing the bona fide; therefore, these sales do not period of review (POR) November 1, provide a reasonable or reliable basis for 2009, through April 30, 2010, for Jining parties’ case briefs. calculating a dumping margin. Thus, the Yifa Garlic Produce Co., Ltd. (Jining Scope of the Order Department is rescinding the NSR of Yifa) and Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd. Jining Yifa. (Shenzhen Bainong) and November 1, The products covered by the order are 2009, through May 31, 2010, for Yantai all grades of garlic, whole or separated Final Rescission of NSR: Shenzhen Jinyan Trading Inc. (Yantai Jinyan). See into constituent cloves, whether or not Bainong peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic In the Preliminary Intent to Rescind, provisionally preserved, or packed in of China: Preliminary Intent To Rescind the Department analyzed the bona fides water or other neutral substance, but not New Shipper Reviews, 76 FR 24857 of Shenzhen Bainong’s sales and prepared or preserved by the addition of (May 3, 2011) (Preliminary Intent to preliminarily found Shenzhen Rescind). The Department preliminarily other ingredients or heat processing. Bainong’s sales to the United States to found that Jining Yifa’s and Shenzhen The differences between grades are be not bona fide. In the Preliminary Bainong’s sales were not bona fide. The based on color, size, sheathing, and Intent to Rescind, we stated that we Department preliminarily found that level of decay. The scope of the order would continue to gather information Yantai Jinyan was not entitled to an does not include the following: (a) with respect to this issue. The NSR. Garlic that has been mechanically Department subsequently issued a The Department continues to find that harvested and that is primarily, but not supplemental questionnaire to the U.S. sales of subject merchandise exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; Shenzhen Bainong, to which Shenzhen exported by Jining Yifa and Shenzhen or (b) garlic that has been specially Bainong responded. Shenzhen Bainong Bainong during the POR were not bona prepared and cultivated prior to filed a case brief and Petitioners filed a fide and is rescinding the NSRs of Jining planting and then harvested and rebuttal brief. The Department has Yifa and Shenzhen Bainong. After otherwise prepared for use as seed. The analyzed Shenzhen Bainong’s analyzing the comments submitted by subject merchandise is used principally supplemental questionnaire response parties with respect to Yantai Jinyan, as a food product and for seasoning. The and the case and rebuttal briefs. We the Department continues to find that subject garlic is currently classifiable continue to find that Shenzhen Yantai Jinyan was not entitled to an under subheadings 0703.20.0010, Bainong’s sale is not bona fide and does NSR. Therefore, the Department is 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, not provide a reasonable or reliable rescinding Yantai Jinyan’s NSR. 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, basis for calculating a dumping margin. DATES: Effective Date: August 22, 2011. 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Thus we are rescinding the NSR for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Shenzhen Bainong. Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Milton Koch, or United States (HTSUS). Although the Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, HTSUS subheadings are provided for Final Rescission of NSR: Yantai Jinyan Office 6, Import Administration, convenience and customs purposes, our As noted above, the Department International Trade Administration, written description of the scope of the received a case brief and a rebuttal brief U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th order is dispositive. In order to be from Yantai Jinyan and Petitioners, Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., excluded from the order, garlic entered respectively. In the Preliminary Intent to Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) under the HTSUS subheadings listed Rescind, the Department stated that its 482–5255, (202) 482–2584, and (202) above that is (1) mechanically harvested decision to initiate the NSR and to 482–0486, respectively. and primarily, but not exclusively, extend the POR was based on the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: destined for non-fresh use or (2) information provided by Yantai Jinyan specially prepared and cultivated prior in its request for an NSR. The Background to planting and then harvested and Department reached a preliminary Since the Department issued the otherwise prepared for use as seed must decision to rescind the NSR of Yantai Preliminary Intent to Rescind, the be accompanied by declarations to U.S. Jinyan because the Department found following events have occurred with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to that Yantai Jinyan’s request for review respect to Jining Yifa, Shenzhen that effect. contained a misrepresentation regarding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

the timing of the sale at issue. The Operations, Issues and Decision antidumping duties on entries for Jining Department continues to find that Memorandum: Fresh Garlic from the Yifa and Shenzhen Bainong at the PRC- Yantai Jinyan’s request for an NSR did People’s Republic of China; Final wide rate pursuant to the final results of not meet the minimum requirements for Rescission of New Shipper Reviews of the 2009–2010 administrative review. an NSR under 19 CFR Jining Yifa Garlic Produce Co. Ltd., In addition, the Department has 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(C). Specifically, the Shenzhen Bainong Co., Ltd., and Yantai moved Yantai Jinyan’s separate rate sale that Yantai Jinyan certified in its Jinyan Trading Inc.’’ (Decision application from the record of this NSR request as the first sale to an unaffiliated Memorandum), dated concurrently with to the record of the 2009–2010 customer in the United States was later this notice and hereby adopted by this administrative review, and, during the identified by Yantai Jinyan as a sale to notice. A list of the issues raised in the course of the administrative review, the an affiliated customer. In order to briefs and addressed in the Decision Department will evaluate whether qualify for an NSR under 19 CFR Memorandum is appended to this Yantai Jinyan’s separate rate application 351.214, a company must certify and notice. The Decision Memorandum is a establishes its eligibility for a separate document, among other things, the date public document on file in the Central rate. Upon completion of the of the first sale to an unaffiliated Records Unit (CRU) main Commerce administrative review, the Department customer in the United States. Once all building, Room 7046, and is also will instruct CBP to assess antidumping the facts surrounding the transaction accessible directly on the Web at duties on entries of subject merchandise were established, it became clear that http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy by Yantai Jinyan now covered by the Yantai Jinyan did not have a sale or and electronic version of the Decision administrative review, at the entry during the standard POR; as such, Memorandum are identical in content. appropriate rate pursuant to the final there was in fact no basis upon which The Department has made the transition results of the 2009–2010 administrative to initiate an NSR. Consequently, we to an electronic filing system, IA review. preliminarily determined that the ACCESS; CRU will continue to maintain Department’s decision to initiate the the official record in paper form for Notification to Importers NSR of Yantai Jinyan was based on those documents that were filed prior to This notice serves as a reminder to inaccurate information provided by the implementation of IA ACCESS. See importers of their responsibility under Yantai Jinyan. See Preliminary Intent to Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate Rescind, 76 FR at 24858. After analyzing Proceedings: Electronic Filing regarding the reimbursement of Yantai Jinyan’s case brief and Procedures; Administrative Protective antidumping duties prior to liquidation Petitioners’ rebuttal brief, the Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263, 39264 of the relevant entries during this Department continues to find that (July 6, 2011). review period. Failure to comply with Yantai Jinyan’s request for an NSR did this requirement could result in the Cash Deposit Requirements not meet the requirements for initiation. Secretary’s presumption that As such, it is appropriate to rescind the Effective upon publication of the final reimbursement of antidumping duties NSR of Yantai Jinyan. rescission of the NSRs of Jining Yifa, occurred and the subsequent assessment The Department is currently Shenzhen Bainong, and Yantai Jinyan, of double antidumping duties. conducting an antidumping duty the Department will instruct CBP to administrative review for the POR discontinue the option of posting a bond Return or Destruction of Proprietary November 1, 2009, through October 31, or security in lieu of a cash deposit for Information 2010, to which Yantai Jinyan is subject. entries of subject merchandise by Jining This notice serves as a reminder to See Initiation of Antidumping and Yifa, Shenzhen Bainong, and Yantai parties subject to the administrative Countervailing Duty Administrative Jinyan. Cash deposits will be required protective order (APO) of their Reviews and Request for Revocation in for exports of subject merchandise by responsibility concerning the Part, 75 FR 81565, 81569 (December 28, Jining Yifa, Shenzhen Bainong, and disposition of proprietary information 2010). As indicated in the Preliminary Yantai Jinyan entered, or withdrawn disclosed under the APO in accordance Intent to Rescind, the Department has from warehouse, for consumption on or with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely moved Yantai Jinyan’s separate rate after the publication date at the per-unit written notification of return or application from the record of this NSR PRC-wide rate, $4.71 per kilogram. destruction of APO materials or to the record of the 2009–2010 Assessment Instructions conversion to judicial protective order is administrative review, and will consider hereby requested. Failure to comply it in the context of the administrative As a result of the rescission of the with the regulations and the terms of an review. See ‘‘Memorandum from NSR of Jining Yifa and Shenzhen APO is a sanctionable violation. Jacqueline Arrowsmith to the File Bainong, the entries of subject This notice is issued and published in through Dana S. Mermelstein, Program merchandise by Jining Yifa and accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) Manager, AD/CVD Operations 6, Shenzhen Bainong covered by these and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Moving Yantai Jinyan’s Separate Rates NSRs will be assessed at the PRC-wide amended, and 19 CFR 351.214. rate. Because these entries are also Application to the November 1, 2009 Dated: August 15, 2011. through October 31, 2010 (16th) covered by the POR of the 2009–2010 Christian Marsh, Administrative Review,’’ dated administrative review currently being concurrently with this notice. conducted (see Initiation of Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administration. Analysis of Comments Received Administrative Reviews and Request for Appendix I—List of Issues Addressed All issues raised in the case and Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565), we in the Decision Memorandum rebuttal briefs are addressed in the will issue liquidation instructions for Comment 1: Whether Yantai Jinyan’s NSR ‘‘Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Jining Yifa’s and Shenzhen Bainong’s Request Satisfied the Requirements for Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import entries upon completion of the Initiation Administration from Christian Marsh, administrative review. Upon completion Comment 2: Whether Yantai Jinyan Made Deputy Assistant Secretary for of the administrative review, the Inaccurate Representations in Its NSR Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Department will instruct CBP to assess Request

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52317

Comment 3: Whether Yantai Jinyan’s Sale to I. Abstract or other forms of information Its Unaffiliated Customer Should Be technology. Reviewed Because the POR Was Expanded The success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on Comments submitted in response to Comment 4: Whether the Department Has the this notice will be summarized and/or Discretion To Continue Yantai Jinyan’s regulatory compliance. The vessel NSR or Initiate Another NSR identification requirement is essential to included in the request for OMB Comment 5: Yantai Jinyan’s Cash Deposit facilitate enforcement. The ability to approval of this information collection; and Assessment Rate link fishing or other activity to the they also will become a matter of public Comment 6: Whether the Department’s vessel owner or operator is crucial to record. Authority To Rescind Shenzhen Bainong’s enforcement of regulations issued under Dated: August 16, 2011. New Shipper Review Is Limited to a Sale Gwellnar Banks, That Is Unrepresentative and Extremely the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Distortive Fishery Conservation and Management Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Comment 7: Whether the Pricing of Act. A vessel’s official number is Information Officer. Shenzhen Bainong’s Sale Is Commercially required to be displayed on the port and [FR Doc. 2011–21309 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Reasonable starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Comment 8: Whether the Quantity of and on a weather deck. It identifies each Shenzhen Bainong’s Sale Is Commercially vessel and should be visible at distances Reasonable at sea and in the air. Vessels that qualify DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Comment 9: Whether the Department’s for particular fisheries are readily Concerns Regarding Shenzhen Bainong’s identified, gear violations are more National Oceanic and Atmospheric Importer as Legitimate Ongoing Business Administration Concern Are Justified readily prosecuted, and this allows for Comment 10: Whether Shenzhen Bainong’s more cost-effective enforcement. RIN 0648–XA641 Importer Behaved in a Commercially Cooperating fishermen also use the Reasonable Manner number to report suspicious activities Marine Mammals; File No. 16553 that they observe. Regulation-compliant [FR Doc. 2011–21377 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Correction BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P fishermen ultimately benefit as unauthorized and illegal fishing is In notice document 2011–21001 deterred and more burdensome appearing on page 51002 in the issue of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE regulations are avoided. August 17, 2011, make the following II. Method of Collection correction: National Oceanic and Atmospheric On page 51002, in the second column, Administration Fishing vessel owners physically under the DATES heading, in the third mark vessel with identification numbers line, ‘‘August 17, 2011’’ should read Proposed Information Collection; in three locations per vessel. ‘‘September 16, 2011’’. Comment Request; Northwest Region Vessel Identification Requirements III. Data [FR Doc. C1–2011–21001 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] OMB Control Number: 0648–0355. BILLING CODE 1505–01–D AGENCY: National Oceanic and Form Number: None. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Type of Review: Regular submission DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Commerce. (extension of a currently approved ACTION: Notice. information collection). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Affected Public: Business or other for- Administration SUMMARY: The Department of profit organizations. Commerce, as part of its continuing Estimated Number of Respondents: RIN 0648–XA647 effort to reduce paperwork and 1,693. respondent burden, invites the general Endangered and Threatened Species; Estimated Time per Response: 45 Recovery Plans public and other Federal agencies to minutes (15 minutes per marking). take this opportunity to comment on Estimated Total Annual Burden AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries proposed and/or continuing information Hours: 1,247. Service, National Oceanic and collections, as required by the Estimated Total Annual Cost to Atmospheric Administration, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public: $66,520 in recordkeeping/ Commerce. DATES: Written comments must be reporting costs. ACTION: Notice of Availability. submitted on or before October 21, 2011. IV. Request for Comments SUMMARY: The National Marine Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments the proposed collection of information adoption of an Endangered Species Act to Diana Hynek, Departmental is necessary for the proper performance (ESA) recovery plan for the Upper Paperwork Clearance Officer, of the functions of the agency, including Willamette Chinook salmon Department of Commerce, Room 6616, whether the information shall have (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Washington, DC 20230 (or via the agency’s estimate of the burden and the Upper Willamette River Internet at [email protected]). (including hours and cost) of the steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposed collection of information; (c) Distinct Population Segment (DPS), Requests for additional information or ways to enhance the quality, utility, and which spawn and rear in tributaries to copies of the information collection clarity of the information to be the Willamette River in western Oregon. instrument and instructions should be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the The Final Upper Willamette River directed to Becky Renko, (206) 526– burden of the collection of information Conservation and Recovery Plan for 6110 or [email protected]. on respondents, including through the Chinook Salmon and Steelhead (Final SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: use of automated collection techniques Recovery Plan) and our summary of and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

responses to public comments are now members of their ecosystems and no government agencies, and the available. longer need the protections of the ESA. community. The Final Recovery Plan provides ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the Conclusion Final Recovery Plan and a summary of background on the natural history of Upper Willamette Chinook salmon and NMFS has reviewed the Plan for and response to public comments on the steelhead, population trends and the compliance with the requirements of the Proposed Recovery Plan (Proposed Plan) potential threats to their viability. The ESA section 4(f), determined that it does are available online at http://www.nwr. Final Recovery Plan lays out a recovery incorporate the required elements and is noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ strategy to address the potential threats therefore adopting it as the Final Recovery-Domains/Willamette-Lower- based on the best available science and Recovery Plan for Upper Willamette Columbia/Index.cfm. A CD–ROM of includes goals that incorporate salmon and steelhead. these documents can be obtained by objective, measurable criteria which, emailing a request to rob.walton@noaa. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. when met, would result in a gov or by writing to NMFS Protected Dated: August 16, 2011. determination that the species be Resources Division, 1201 NE., Lloyd removed from the list. The Final Therese Conant, Blvd., Portland, OR 97202. Recovery Plan is not regulatory, but Deputy Chief, Endangered Species Division, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob presents guidance for use by agencies Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Walton, National Marine Fisheries and interested parties to assist in the Service, (503) 231–2285. recovery of Upper Willamette salmon [FR Doc. 2011–21383 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and steelhead. The Final Recovery Plan identifies substantive actions needed to Background achieve recovery by addressing the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Endangered Species Act of 1973 threats to the species. The strategy for (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et recovery includes a linkage between National Oceanic and Atmospheric seq.) requires that we develop and management actions and an active Administration implement recovery plans for the research and monitoring program conservation and survival of threatened intended to fill data gaps and assess U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Public and endangered species under our effectiveness. The Final Recovery Plan Meeting and Public Comment jurisdiction, unless it is determined that incorporates an adaptive management framework by which management AGENCY: National Ocean Service, such plans would not result in the NOAA, Department of Commerce. conservation of the species. We actions and other elements will evolve and adapt as we gain information ACTION: Notice of public meeting, Notice designated Upper Willamette Chinook of public comment. salmon as threatened on in the Federal through research and monitoring and it describes the agency guidance on time Register on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a lines for reviews of the status of species and steelhead as threatened on January public meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef and recovery plans. To address threats 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Task Force. The meeting will be held in related to the species, the Final We published a Notice of Availability Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. This meeting, Recovery Plan references many of the the 26th bi-annual meeting of the U.S. of the Proposed Plan in the Federal significant efforts already underway to Register on October 22, 2010 (75 FR Coral Reef Task Force, provides a forum restore salmon and steelhead access to for coordinated planning and action 65299) and held four public meetings to high quality habitat and to improve obtain comments on the Proposed Plan. among federal agencies, state and habitat previously degraded. territorial governments, and We received over 30 comments on the We expect the Final Recovery Plan to nongovernmental partners. Please Proposed Plan and summarized the help us and other Federal agencies take register in advance by visiting the Web public comments, prepared responses, a consistent approach to section 7 site listed below. This meeting has time and identified the public comments that consultations under the ESA and to allotted for public comment. All public prompted revisions for the Final other ESA decisions. For example, the comment must be submitted in written Recovery Plan. We revised the Proposed Final Recovery Plan will provide format. A written summary of the Plan based on the comments received, information on the biological context for meeting will be posted on the Web site and this final version now constitutes the effects that a proposed action may within two months of its occurrence. the Upper Willamette River have on the listed ESU and DPS. The Conservation and Recovery Plan for best available information in the Final DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. Recovery Plan on the natural history, October 21, 2011. Additional workshops will be held in advance of the meeting The Final Recovery Plan threats, and potential limiting factors, and priorities for recovery can be used on Tuesday, October 18, and The ESA requires that recovery plans to help assess risks. Consistent with the Wednesday, October 19, and field trips incorporate, to the extent practicable: adoption of this Final Recovery Plan for on Thursday, October 20. Registration is (1) Objective, measurable criteria which, Upper Willamette salmon and requested for all events associated with when met, would result in a steelhead, we will implement relevant the meeting. Advance public comments determination that the species is no actions for which we have authority, can be submitted to the email, fax, or longer threatened or endangered; work cooperatively on implementation mailing address listed below from (2) site-specific management actions of other actions, and encourage other Monday, September 26–Friday, necessary to achieve the plan’s goals; Federal and state agencies to implement October 7. and (3) estimates of the time required recovery actions for which they have Location: The meeting will be held at and costs to implement recovery responsibility and authority. the Marriott Harbor Beach Hotel, 3030 actions. Our goal is to restore the Recovery of Upper Willamette salmon Holiday Drive, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida threatened Upper Willamette Chinook and steelhead will require a long-term 33316. salmon and steelhead to the point where effort in cooperation and coordination FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth they are again secure, self-sustaining with Federal, state, tribal and local Dieveney, NOAA USCRTF Steering

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52319

Committee Point of Contact, NOAA Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Administrator determines that the Coral Reef Conservation Program, 1305 Commerce. requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no East-West Highway, N/OCRM, Silver ACTION: Notice; affirmative finding longer being met or that a nation is Spring, MD 20910 (phone: 301–713– renewal. consistently failing to take enforcement 3155 x129; fax: 301–713–4389; e-mail: actions on violations, thereby [email protected]); or Liza SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator diminishing the effectiveness of the Johnson, USCRTF Executive Secretary, for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant IDCP. U.S. Department of the Interior, MS– Administrator) has renewed the As a part of the affirmative finding 3530–MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., affirmative finding for the Government process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the Washington, DC 20240 (phone: 202– of Spain under the Marine Mammal Assistant Administrator considered 208–1378; fax: 202–208–4867; e-mail: Protection Act (MMPA). This documentary evidence submitted by the ([email protected]); or visit affirmative finding will allow yellowfin Government of Spain and obtained from the USCRTF Web site at http://www. tuna harvested in the eastern tropical the IATTC and has determined that coralreef.gov. Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with Spain has met the MMPA’s the International Dolphin Conservation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requirements to receive an affirmative Established by Presidential Executive Program (IDCP) by Spanish-flag purse finding annual renewal. Order 13089 in 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef seine vessels or purse seine vessels After consultation with the Task Force mission is to lead, operating under Spanish jurisdiction to Department of State, the Assistant coordinate, and strengthen U.S. be imported into the United States. The Administrator issued an affirmative government actions to better preserve affirmative finding was based on review finding annual renewal to Spain, and protect coral reef ecosystems. Co- of documentary evidence submitted by allowing the continued importation into chaired by the Departments of the Government of Spain and obtained the United States of yellowfin tuna and Commerce and Interior, Task Force from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna products derived from yellowfin tuna members include leaders of 12 federal Commission (IATTC). harvested in the ETP by Spanish-flag agencies, seven U.S. states and DATES: The affirmative finding annual purse seine vessels or purse seine territories, and three freely associated renewal is effective from April 1, 2011, vessels operating under Spanish states. For more information about the through March 31, 2012. jurisdiction through March 31, 2012. meeting, registering, and submitting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Spain’s five-year affirmative finding will public comment go to http://www. Sarah Wilkin, Southwest Region, NMFS, remain valid through March 31, 2015, coralreef.gov. phone 562–980–3230; fax 562–980– subject to subsequent annual reviews by Public Comments: Comments may 4027. NMFS. address the meeting, the role of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Dated: August 17, 2011. USCRTF, or general coral reef MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows Samuel D. Rauch III, conservation issues. the entry into the United States of Deputy Assistant Administrator for Public Availability of Comments: yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine Regulatory Services, National Marine Before including your address, phone vessels in the ETP under certain Fisheries Service. number, e-mail address, or other conditions. If requested by the [FR Doc. 2011–21385 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] personal identifying information in your harvesting nation, the Assistant BILLING CODE 3510–22–P comment, you should be aware that Administrator will determine whether your entire comment—including your to make an affirmative finding based personal identifying information—may upon documentary evidence provided be made publicly available at any time. by the government of the harvesting DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE While you can ask us in your comment nation, the IATTC, or the Department of to withhold your personal identifying State. Federal Advisory Committee Meeting information from public review, we The affirmative finding process Notice; Threat Reduction Advisory cannot guarantee that we will be able to requires that the harvesting nation is Committee do so. meeting its obligations under the IDCP AGENCY: and obligations of membership in the Office of the Under Secretary of Dated: August 12, 2011. Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Donna Wieting, IATTC. Every 5 years, the government of the harvesting nation must request an Logistics), Department of Defense. Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal affirmative finding and submit the ACTION: Federal Advisory Committee Resource Management, National Ocean Meeting Notice. Service, National Oceanic Atmospheric required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an Administration. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the annual basis, NMFS reviews the [FR Doc. 2011–21372 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Federal Advisory Committee Act of affirmative finding and determine BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) whether the harvesting nation continues and the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. to meet the requirements. A nation may 552b, as amended) the Department of provide information related to DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Defense announces the following compliance with IDCP and IATTC Federal advisory committee meeting of National Oceanic and Atmospheric measures directly to NMFS on an the Threat Reduction Advisory Administration annual basis or may authorize the Committee (Hereafter referred to as ‘‘the IATTC to release the information to 0648–XA487 Committee’’). NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an DATES: Tuesday, September 7, 2011, Taking and Importing of Marine from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Mammals application from the harvesting nation. An affirmative finding will be ADDRESSES: TASC Lorton Office, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries terminated, in consultation with the Conference Room 111, 8211 Terminal Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Secretary of State, if the Assistant Road, Suite 1000, Lorton, VA 22079.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52320 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dated: August 15, 2011. Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was William Hostyn, Defense Threat Aaron Siegel, submitted on August 12, 2011, to the Reduction Agency/SP–ACP, 8725 John Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison House Committee on Oversight and J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, Officer, Department of Defense. Government Reform, the Senate VA 22060–6201. E-mail: [FR Doc. 2011–21314 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Committee on Governmental Affairs, [email protected], Phone: (703) BILLING CODE 5001–06–P and the Office of Management and 767–4453, Fax: (703) 767–5701. Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 130, ‘‘Federal Agency Responsibilities Purpose of Meeting: To obtain, review for Maintaining Records About and evaluate classified information Office of the Secretary Individuals,’’ dated February 8, 1996 related to the Committee’s mission to [Docket ID: DOD–2011–OS–0092] (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427). advise on technology security, Dated: August 15, 2011. Privacy Act of 1974; System of combating weapons of mass destruction Aaron Siegel, (WMD), counter terrorism and counter Records Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison proliferation. AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Officer, Department of Defense. Agenda: Beginning at 8:30 a.m. Defense, Department of Defense (DoD). DHA 23 through the end of the meeting, the ACTION: Notice to add a system of Committee will present SECRET-level records. SYSTEM NAME: Working Group findings throughout the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of duration of the meeting. The TRAC will (PDTS). also hold classified discussions on Defense proposes to add a system of WMD related national security matters. records to its inventory of record SYSTEM LOCATION: systems subject to the Privacy Act of Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 Primary: Emdeon Business Services, 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. LLC, 2045 Midway Drive, Twinsburg, U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR DATES: This proposed action would be 102–3.155, the Department of Defense OH 44087–1933. effective without further notice on Alternate: Emdeon Business Services, has determined that the meeting shall be September 21, 2011 unless comments LLC, 3993 Suite B, Crowfarn Drive, closed to the public. The Under are received which result in a contrary Memphis, TN 38118–7326. Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, determination. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE Technology and Logistics, in ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, SYSTEM: consultation with the DoD FACA identified by docket number and title, Attorney, has determined in writing that by any of the following methods: Members of the uniformed services this meeting be closed to the public • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// (and their dependents) and retired because the discussions fall under the www.regulations.gov. Follow the military members (and their purview of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and are instructions for submitting comments. dependents), contractors participating inextricably intertwined with the • Mail: Federal Docket Management in military deployments or related unclassified material which cannot System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, operations, DoD civilian employees (to reasonably be segregated into separate Washington, DC 20301–1160. include non-appropriated fund discussions without disclosing secret Instructions: All submissions received employees), and other individuals who material. must include the agency name and receive or have received drug docket number for this Federal Register prescriptions dispensed and/or filled at Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 document. The general policy for military treatment facilities, via CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, the comments and other submissions from TRICARE mail-order, the TRICARE public or interested organizations may members of the public is to make these retail pharmacy network, and submit written statements to the submissions available for public commercial pharmacies. membership of the Committee at any viewing on the Internet at http:// time or in response to the stated agenda www.regulations.gov as they are CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: of a planned meeting. Written received without change, including any Electronic data extracted from an statements should be submitted to the personal identifiers or contact individual’s pharmacy and prescription Committee’s Designated Federal Officer; information. records. the Designated Federal Officer’s contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information can be obtained from the Ms. PATIENT DATA: GSA’s FACA Database—https:// Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Name, Social Security Number Office, Freedom of Information www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp. (SSN)and/or DoD Identification (ID) Directorate, Washington Headquarters Number (or foreign identification Written statements that do not pertain Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, number), visit date and time, date of to a scheduled meeting of the Washington, DC 20301–1155, or by birth, mailing address, home telephone Committee may be submitted at any phone at (703) 588–6830. number, family member prefix (if time. However, if individual comments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office appropriate), relationship to policy pertain to a specific topic being of the Secretary of Defense notices for holder, and service branch discussed at a planned meeting then systems of records subject to the Privacy classification. these statements must be submitted no Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, later than five business days prior to the have been published in the Federal SPONSOR DATA: meeting in question. The Designated Register and are available from the This includes name, SSN and/or DoD Federal Officer will review all address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ID Number, date of birth, relationship to submitted written statements and CONTACT. policy holder, gender, insurance policy provide copies to all committee The proposed system report, as holder name, and data on Health Care members. required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Delivery Program Plan coverage.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52321

EMPLOYER DATA: amended, these records may specifically access is through the system’s Pharmacy Employer’s name, address, and be disclosed outside the DoD as a Operations Center. Access to personally telephone number. routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. identifiable information in this system 552a(b)(3) as follows: of records is restricted to those who OTHER DATA: To the Centers for Medicare and require the data in the performance of Primary care manager, primary care Medicaid Services and to the the official duties, and have received manager network provider, copayment Department of Veterans Affairs for proper training relative to the Privacy factor, primary care manager region, and coordination of benefits. Act of 1974, as amended, 45 CFR part pharmacy coverage, if applicable; The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set 160, Health and Human Services, ancillary information related to an forth at the beginning of the Office of General Administrative Requirements; individual’s prescriptions, including the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and 45 CFR part 164, Security & prior authorizations and certificates of compilation of systems of records Privacy, and DoD Information medical necessity; Medicare and notices apply to this system. Assurance Regulations. Medicaid coverage data; and data on enrollment in various health care Note 1: This system of records contains AUDITING: individually identifiable health information. programs within the DoD and The DoD Health Information Privacy Audit trail records from all available contracted health care programs Regulation (DoD 6025.18–R), issued pursuant sources are enabled and available for provided through commercial to the Health Insurance Portability and review at all times for indications of prescription benefit managers and Accountability Act of 1996, applies to most inappropriate or unusual activity. through Medicare Part D. such health information. DoD 6025.18–R may Suspected violations of information place additional procedural requirements on assurance policies are analyzed and AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: the uses and disclosures of such information reported in accordance with DoD and 10 U.S.C. chapter 55, Medical and beyond those found in the Privacy Act of Military Health System/TRICARE Dental Care; 32 CFR 199.17, TRICARE 1974, as amended, or mentioned in this Management Activity specific system of records notice. Program; 45 CFR part 160, Health and information system information Human Services, General Note 2: Personal identity, diagnosis, assurance procedures. Administrative Requirements; 45 CFR prognosis or treatment information of any RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: part 164, Security & Privacy; DoD patient maintained in connection with the Instruction 6015.23, Delivery of performance of any program or activity Records are retained for two years and Healthcare at Military Treatment relating to substance abuse education, then deleted. Facilities; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as prevention, training, treatment, SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: amended. rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly Director, DoD Pharmacy Informatics, PURPOSE(S): assisted by any department or agency of the TRICARE Management Activity, To establish a central repository for United States is, except as per 42 U.S.C. Pharmaceutical Operations Directorate, coordination of benefits of pharmacy 290dd–2, treated as confidential and Suite 810, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Falls records pertaining to prescriptions disclosed only for the purposes and under Church, VA 22041–3201. dispensed and/or filled at military the circumstances expressly authorized under 42 U.S.C. 290dd–2. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: treatment facilities, via TRICARE mail- order, the TRICARE retail pharmacy Individuals seeking to determine POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, network, and privately owned whether information about themselves RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND is contained in this system should pharmacies. DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: To improve efficiency and patient address written inquiries to the safety by reducing the likelihood of drug STORAGE: TRICARE Management Activity, adverse reactions and abuse involving Electronic storage media. Department of Defense, ATTN: TMA prescription medications and to Privacy Officer, Suite 810, 5111 RETRIEVABILITY: discourage prescription shopping. Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– To provide data necessary to conduct Records are retrieved by patient’s 3206. Prospective Drug Utilization Review on name, SSN and/or DoD ID Number, date Requests should contain the full inbound dispensing transactions and of birth, family member prefix or names of the beneficiary and sponsor, returns alerts when encountering drug/ dependent suffix; or sponsor’s name, sponsor’s SSN and/or DoD ID Number, drug interactions, therapeutic Social Security Number (SSN) and/or sponsor’s service, beneficiary’s date of duplication, or other clinical DoD ID Number. birth, beneficiary’s gender, and treatment facility(ies) that have circumstances as defined by system SAFEGUARDS: provided care. requirements. Records are maintained in a To provide a data warehouse If requesting health information of a controlled area accessible only to minor (or legally incompetent person), component to support operational, authorized personnel. Entry is further clinical, and economic studies of the request must be made by that restricted to personnel with a valid individual’s parent, guardian, or person TRICARE prescription activity. requirement and authorization. Physical Information may also be used as a acting in loco parentis. Written proof of entry is restricted by the use of locks management tool for statistical analysis, the capacity of the requestor may be and passwords and administrative tracking, reporting, evaluating program required. procedures which are changed effectiveness, and conducting research. periodically. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE This system collects and distributes Individuals seeking access to records SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND records on a system-to-system basis that about themselves contained in this THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: does not require end-user direct system of records should address In addition to those disclosures interaction. However, in the rare written inquiries to TRICARE generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. instances when a record must be Management Activity, Attention: 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as retrieved by a qualified individual, such Freedom of Information Act Requester

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52322 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Service Center, 16401 East Centretech ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, system will not be destroyed until the Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–9066. identified by docket number and title, National Archives and Records Requests should contain the full by any of the following methods: Administration (NARA) retention has names of the beneficiary and sponsor, * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// been fulfilled. sponsor’s SSN and/or DoD ID Number, www.regulations.gov. Follow the [FR Doc. 2011–21286 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] sponsor’s service, beneficiary date of instructions for submitting comments. BILLING CODE 5001–06–P birth, beneficiary gender, and treatment * Mail: Federal Docket Management facility(ies) that have provided care, the System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, name and number of this system of Washington, DC 20301–1160. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE records notice and be signed. Instructions: All submissions received If requesting health information of a must include the agency name and Department of the Army docket number for this Federal Register minor (or legally incompetent person), Notice of Availability for Exclusive, document. The general policy for the request must be made by that Non-Exclusive, or Partially-Exclusive comments and other submissions from individual’s parent, legal guardian, or Licensing of an Invention Concerning members of the public is to make these person acting in loco parentis. Written a Device and Method for Evaluating submissions available for public proof of the capacity of the requestor Manual Dexterity may be required. viewing on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov as they are AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: received without change, including any ACTION: Notice. The OSD rules for accessing records, personal identifiers or contact for contesting contents and appealing information. SUMMARY: Announcement is made of the initial agency determinations are availability for licensing of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. invention set forth in U.S. Provisional published in OSD Administrative Cindy Allard, Privacy Act Officer, Office Patent Application Serial No. 61/ Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311, or may of Freedom of Information, Washington 505,424, entitled ‘‘Device and Method be obtained from the system manager. Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense for Evaluating Manual Dexterity,’’ filed Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1155, RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: on July 7, 2011. The United States or by phone at (571) 372–0461. Information is obtained from Military Government, as represented by the Departments’ medical treatment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office Secretary of the Army, has rights to this facilities, commercial healthcare of the Secretary of Defense systems of invention. records notices subject to the Privacy providers under contract to the Military ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Health System, the Defense Enrollment Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as Medical Research and Materiel Eligibility Reporting System, the amended, have been published in the Command, Attn: Command Judge Uniformed Service Treatment Facility Federal Register and are available from Advocate, MCMR–JA, 504 Scott Street, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Managed Care System, commercial the address in Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702– pharmacies, and the Department of CONTACT. 5012. Veterans Affairs. The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one system of records FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: notice from its inventory of record patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, None. systems subject to the Privacy Act of Patent Attorney, (301) 619–7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of [FR Doc. 2011–21285 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The Research and Technology Applications BILLING CODE 5001–06–P proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy (ORTA), (301) 619–6664, both at telefax Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as (301) 619–5034. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE amended, which requires the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The submission of a new or altered system invention relates to manual dexterity Office of the Secretary report. assessment in general, and in particular [Docket ID: DOD–2011–OS–0093] Dated: August 15, 2011. to devices for measuring manual dexterity and methods of use thereof. Aaron Siegel, Privacy Act of 1974; System of Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Brenda S. Bowen, Records Officer, Department of Defense. Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Deletion: [FR Doc. 2011–21375 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Defense, Department of Defense (DoD). DGC 06 BILLING CODE 3710–08–P ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Attorney and Summer Intern Position Records. Applications (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10227). DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense (Office of Assistant General REASON: Advisory Committee on Student Counsel, Manpower and Health Affairs) Based on a recent review of DGC 06, Financial Assistance: Hearing is deleting systems of records notice Attorney and Summer Intern Position AGENCY: Advisory Committee on from its existing inventory of record Applications by the Office of the Student Financial Assistance, systems subject to the Privacy Act of Assistant General Counsel (Manpower Education. 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. and Health Affairs), it has been ACTION: Notice of an Open Meeting/ DATES: This proposed action will be determined that DGC 06 is duplicative Hearing. effective without further notice on of OPM/GOVT–5 Recruiting, September 21, 2011 unless comments Examining, and Placement Records SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the are received which result in a contrary (June 19, 2006, 71 FR 35351), and can schedule and proposed agenda of a determination. therefore be deleted. Records in this forthcoming meeting/hearing of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52323

Advisory Committee on Student completion among nontraditional To use PDF you must have Adobe Financial Assistance. This notice also students. Acrobat Reader, which is available free describes the functions of the Advisory Individuals who will need at the Federal Register Web site. If you Committee. Notice of this hearing is accommodations for a disability in order have questions about using PDF, call the required under Section 10(a)(2) of the to attend the meeting/hearing (i.e., U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Federal Advisory Committee Act. This interpreting services, assistive listening toll free at 1–888–293–6498; or in the document is intended to notify the devices, and/or materials in alternative Washington, DC area at (202) 512–1530. general public. format) should notify the Advisory Note: The official version of this document Date and Time: Friday, September 30, Committee no later than Friday, is the document published in the Federal 2011, beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending September 16, 2011, by contacting Ms. Register. Free Internet access to the official at approximately 5:00 p.m. Tracy Jones at (202) 219–2099 or via e- edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO ADDRESSES: Washington Court Hotel, mail at [email protected]. We will attempt to meet requests after that Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ Atrium Ballroom, 525 New Jersey index.html. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. date, but cannot guarantee availability of the requested accommodation. The Dated: August 17, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. meeting/hearing site is accessible to William J. Goggin, Janet Chen, Associate Director of individuals with disabilities. Special Analyses, Advisory Committee Interested parties who wish to Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. on Student Financial Assistance, comment on one or both of the above Capitol Place, 80 F Street, NW., Suite topics may submit a written statement [FR Doc. 2011–21351 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 413, Washington, DC 20202–7582; (202) to the Advisory Committee. To provide BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 219–2099. written comment, please e-mail Individuals who use a [email protected] indicating in the subject telecommunications device for the deaf line one or both of the hearing topics. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (TTY) may call the Federal Information Send comments as an attached file, Federal Energy Regulatory Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339. either .doc, .docx, or .pdf. Comments Commission SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The may also be mailed to: ACSFA, 80 F Advisory Committee on Student Street, NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC Combined Notice of Filings; Filings Financial Assistance is established 20202–7582. Comments must be Instituting Proceedings under Section 491 of the Higher received on or before September 21, Education Act of 1965 as amended by 2011. Take notice that the Commission has Public Law 100–50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). Space for the hearing is limited and received the following Natural Gas The Advisory Committee serves as an you are encouraged to register early. Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: independent source of advice and You may register on the Advisory Docket Numbers: RP11–2365–000. counsel to the Congress and the Committee’s Web site, http:// Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Secretary of Education on student www2.ed.gov/ACSFA or by sending an Pipeline Company, L.L.C. financial aid policy. Since its inception, e-mail to the following address: Description: Cheyenne Plains Gas the congressional mandate requires the [email protected] or Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff Advisory Committee to conduct [email protected]. Please filing per 154.402: ACA Filing effective objective, nonpartisan, and independent include your name, title, affiliation, 10–1–11 to be effective 10/1/2011. analyses on important aspects of the mailing and e-mail addresses, and Filed Date: 08/11/2011. student assistance programs under Title telephone and fax numbers. If you are Accession Number: 20110811–5090. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time IV of the Higher Education Act. In unable to register electronically, you on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. addition, Congress expanded the may fax your registration information to Advisory Committee’s mission in the the Advisory Committee staff office at Docket Numbers: RP11–2366–000. Higher Education Opportunity Act of (202) 219–3032. The registration Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas 2008 to include several important areas: deadline is Wednesday, September 21, Company. Description: Colorado Interstate Gas access, Title IV modernization, early 2011. Company submits tariff filing per information and needs assessment, and Records are kept for Advisory 154.402: ACA Filing—effective 10–1–11 review and analysis of regulations. Committee proceedings, and are to be effective 10/1/2011. Specifically, the Advisory Committee is available for inspection at the Office of Filed Date: 08/11/2011. to review, monitor, and evaluate the the Advisory Committee on Student Accession Number: 20110811–5091. Department of Education’s progress in Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time these areas and report recommended Street, NW.—Suite 413, Washington, DC on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. improvements to Congress and the between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:30 Docket Numbers: RP11–2367–000. Secretary. p.m. Monday through Friday, except Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas The one-day hearing will consist of Federal holidays. Information regarding Company. two sessions. The first will be a the Advisory Committee is available on Description: El Paso Natural Gas discussion among representatives from the Committee’s Web site, http:// Company submits tariff filing per the higher education community www2.ed.gov/ACSFA. 154.402: ACA Filing—effective 10–1–11 regarding the Advisory Committee’s Electronic Access to This Document: to be effective 10/1/2011. preliminary findings report on the You may view this document, as well as Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Higher Education Regulations Study other documents of this Department Accession Number: 20110811–5092. (HERS) to be released at the hearing. published in the Federal Register, in Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time The second session will be a discussion text or Adobe Portable Document on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. among experts regarding the best Format (PDF) on the Internet at the Docket Numbers: RP11–2368–000. practices of states and institutions to following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ Applicants: Mojave Pipeline improve degree and certificate fedregister/index.html. Company, LLC.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52324 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Description: Mojave Pipeline Action and Shortened Comment Period Applicants: Black Marlin Pipeline Company, LLC submits tariff filing per of Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC. Company. 154.402: ACA Filing—effective 10–1–11 Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Description: Black Marlin Pipeline to be effective 10/1/2011. Accession Number: 20110811–5141. Company submits tariff filing per Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 154.203: NAESB Version 1.9–Third Accession Number: 20110811–5093. on Wednesday, August 17, 2011. Compliance Filing to be effective 8/10/ Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: RP11–2375–000. 2011. on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Filed Date: 08/10/2011. Docket Numbers: RP11–2369–000. Company, LP. Accession Number: 20110810–5028. Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Description: Gulf South Pipeline Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Company, L.L.C. Company, LP submits tariff filing per on Monday, August 22, 2011. Description: Wyoming Interstate 154.204: Creditworthiness to be Docket Numbers: RP11–2362–000. Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per effective 9/12/2011. Applicants: Northern Natural Gas 154.402: ACA Filing—effective 10–1–11 Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Company. to be effective 10/1/2011. Accession Number: 20110812–5063. Description: Northern Natural Gas Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Company submits tariff filing per Accession Number: 20110811–5094. on Wednesday, August 24, 2011. 154.204: 20110810 Carlton Flow Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Any person desiring to intervene or Obligations to be effective 11/1/2011. on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. protest in any of the above proceedings Filed Date: 08/10/2011. Docket Numbers: RP11–2370–000. must file in accordance with Rules 211 Accession Number: 20110810–5049. Applicants: Young Gas Storage and 214 of the Commission’s Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Company, Ltd. Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and on Monday, August 22, 2011. Description: Young Gas Storage 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Docket Numbers: RP11–2363–000. Company, Ltd. submits tariff filing per time on the specified comment date. Applicants: Texas Eastern 154.402: ACA Filing—effective 10–1–11 Protests may be considered, but Transmission, LP. to be effective 10/1/2011. intervention is necessary to become a Description: Texas Eastern Filed Date: 08/11/2011. party to the proceeding. Transmission, LP submits tariff filing Accession Number: 20110811–5095. The filings are accessible in the per 154.204: AMDDO Election to be Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Commission’s eLibrary system by effective 10/1/2011. on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. clicking on the links or querying the Filed Date: 08/11/2011. docket number. Docket Numbers: RP11–2371–000. Accession Number: 20110811–5041. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time information relating to filing Pipe Line Company, LLC. on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. requirements, interventions, protests, Description: Transcontinental Gas Docket Numbers: RP11–2364–000. and service can be found at: http:// Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tariff Applicants: LA Storage, LLC. www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing- filing per 154.204: Revisions to GT&C Description: LA Storage, LLC submits req.pdf. For other information, call (866) Section 25 and Section 37 to be effective tariff filing per 154.202: LA Storage, LLC 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 9/11/2011. FERC Gas Tariff to be effective 10/11/ 502–8659. Filed Date: 08/11/2011. 2011. Accession Number: 20110811–5100. Dated: August 12, 2011. Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Kimberly D. Bose, Accession Number: 20110811–5042. on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. Secretary. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: RP11–2372–000. [FR Doc. 2011–21281 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] on Tuesday, August 23, 2011. Applicants: Southern Natural Gas BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Any person desiring to intervene or Company, L.L.C. protest in any of the above proceedings Description: Southern Natural Gas must file in accordance with Rules 211 Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and 214 of the Commission’s 154.402: ACA Surcharge Filing to be Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and effective 10/1/2011. Federal Energy Regulatory 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Commission time on the specified comment date. Accession Number: 20110812–5038. Protests may be considered, but Combined Notice of Filings Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time intervention is necessary to become a on Wednesday, August 24, 2011. Take notice that the Commission has party to the proceeding. Docket Numbers: RP11–2373–000. received the following Natural Gas Filings in Existing Proceedings Applicants: Southern LNG Company, Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: L.L.C. Docket Numbers: RP11–1823–002. Description: Southern LNG Company, Filings Instituting Proceedings Applicants: Public Utilities L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.402: Docket Numbers: RP11–2360–000. Commission of Nevada an. ACA Surcharge Filing to be effective 10/ Applicants: Northwest Pipeline GP. Description: Tuscarora Gas 1/2011. Description: Northwest Pipeline GP Transmission Company—2011 Cost and Filed Date: 08/12/2011. submits tariff filing per 154.402: ACA Revenue Study. Accession Number: 20110812–5039. Fiscal Year 2011 Filing to be effective Filed Date: 08/09/2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 10/1/2011. Accession Number: 20110809–5115. on Wednesday, August 24, 2011. Filed Date: 08/09/2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: RP11–2374–000. Accession Number: 20110809–5022. on Monday, August 22, 2011. Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Any person desiring to protest in any Description: Petition for Temporary on Monday, August 22, 2011. the above proceedings must file in Waiver and Request for Expedited Docket Numbers: RP11–2361–000. accordance with Rule 211 of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52325

Commission’s Regulations (18 CFR Applicants: Ameren Illinois and 214 of the Commission’s 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Company. Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and time on the specified comment date. Description: Ameren Illinois 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern The filings are accessible in the Company submits tariff filing per 35.15: time on the specified comment date. Commission’s eLibrary system by Cancellation of Rate Schedule 113 to be Protests may be considered, but clicking on the links or querying the effective 12/31/9998. intervention is necessary to become a docket number. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. party to the proceeding. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Accession Number: 20110812–5173. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, on Friday, September 02, 2011. requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at: http:// Docket Numbers: ER11–4307–000. service, and qualifying facilities filings www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing- Applicants: Green Mountain Energy can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ req.pdf. For other information, call (866) Company. docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) Description: Green Mountain Energy other information, call (866) 208–3676 502–8659. Company submits tariff filing per 35.12: (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Dated: August 11, 2011. Green Mountain Energy Company Dated: August 15, 2011. Kimberly D. Bose, Application for Market-Based Rate Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Secretary. Authority to be effective 10/11/2011. Deputy Secretary. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. [FR Doc. 2011–21282 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2011–21355 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Accession Number: 20110812–5180. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time BILLING CODE 6717–01–P on Friday, September 02, 2011. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Docket Numbers: ER11–4308–000. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Applicants: Reliant Energy Northeast Federal Energy Regulatory LLC. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Description: Reliant Energy Northeast Commission LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12: [Docket No. ER11–4308–000] Combined Notice of Filings #1 Reliant Energy Northeast Application Take notice that the Commission for Market-Based Rate Authority to be Reliant Energy Northeast LLC; received the following electric rate effective 10/11/2011. Supplemental Notice That Initial filings: Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Accession Number: 20110812–5189. Docket Numbers: ER11–4303–000. Request for Blanket Section 204 Applicants: New York Independent Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Authorization on Friday, September 02, 2011. System Operator, Inc. This is a supplemental notice in the Description: New York Independent Docket Numbers: ER11–4309–000. Applicants: Troy Energy, LLC. above-referenced proceeding of Reliant System Operator, Inc. submits tariff Energy Northeast LLC’s application for filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO filing re: Description: Troy Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35: Revisions to market-based rate authority, with an Voltage Support Service to be effective accompanying rate tariff, noting that 10/11/2011. Market-Based Rate Tariff of Troy Energy to be effective 8/16/2011. such application includes a request for Filed Date: 08/12/2011. blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Accession Number: 20110812–5170. Filed Date: 08/15/2011. Accession Number: 20110815–5052. part 34, of future issuances of securities Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time and assumptions of liability. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011. Any person desiring to intervene or to Docket Numbers: ER11–4304–000. protest should file with the Federal Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Take notice that the Commission Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Cooperative, Inc. received the following electric First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Description: Golden Spread Electric reliability filings. in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 Cooperative, Inc. submits tariff filing per Docket Numbers: RD11–9–000. of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 35.1: Initial Tariff Filing to be effective Applicants: North American Electric and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 10/12/2011. Reliability Corporation. 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Description: Petition of the North intervene or protest must serve a copy Accession Number: 20110812–5171. American Electric Reliability of that document on the Applicant. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Corporation for Approval of an Notice is hereby given that the on Friday, September 02, 2011. Interpretation to Requirement R10 of deadline for filing protests with regard Docket Numbers: ER11–4305–000. Reliability Standard TOP–002–2a— to the applicant’s request for blanket Applicants: Midwest Independent Normal Operations Planning. authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of Transmission System Operator, Inc. Filed Date: 04/15/2011. future issuances of securities and Description: Midwest Independent Accession Number: 20110415–5289. assumptions of liability, is September 6, Transmission System Operator, Inc. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 2011. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: on Wednesday, September 14, 2011. The Commission encourages 08–12–11 ITC Attachment FF Correction The filings are accessible in the electronic submission of protests and to be effective 7/28/2010. Commission’s eLibrary system by interventions in lieu of paper, using the Filed Date: 08/12/2011. clicking on the links or querying the FERC Online links at http:// Accession Number: 20110812–5172. docket number. www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Any person desiring to intervene or service, persons with Internet access on Friday, September 02, 2011. protest in any of the above proceedings who will eFile a document and/or be Docket Numbers: ER11–4306–000. must file in accordance with Rules 211 listed as a contact for an intervenor

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

must create and validate an to the applicant’s request for blanket of the information collection described eRegistration account using the authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of below. eRegistration link. Select the eFiling future issuances of securities and DATES: Comments must be submitted on link to log on and submit the assumptions of liability, is September 6, or before October 21, 2011. intervention or protests. 2011. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are Persons unable to file electronically The Commission encourages invited to submit written comments to should submit an original and 14 copies electronic submission of protests and the FDIC by any of the following of the intervention or protest to the interventions in lieu of paper, using the methods: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC Online links at http:// • http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/ 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic laws/federal/notices.html. 20426. service, persons with Internet access • E-mail: [email protected] Include The filings in the above-referenced who will eFile a document and/or be the name of the collection in the subject proceeding are accessible in the listed as a contact for an intervenor line of the message. Commission’s eLibrary system by must create and validate an • Mail: Leneta G. Gregorie (202–898– clicking on the appropriate link in the eRegistration account using the 3719), Counsel, Room F–1084, Federal above list. They are also available for eRegistration link. Select the eFiling Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th review in the Commission’s Public link to log on and submit the Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. Reference Room in Washington, DC. intervention or protests. • Hand Delivery: Comments may be There is an eSubscription link on the Persons unable to file electronically hand-delivered to the guard station at Web site that enables subscribers to should submit an original and 14 copies the rear of the 17th Street Building receive e-mail notification when a of the intervention or protest to the (located on F Street), on business days document is added to a subscribed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC All comments should refer to the Online service, please e-mail 20426. relevant OMB control number. A copy [email protected] or call The filings in the above-referenced of the comments may also be submitted (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call proceeding are accessible in the to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: (202) 502–8659. Commission’s eLibrary system by Office of Information and Regulatory Dated: August 16, 2011. clicking on the appropriate link in the Affairs, Office of Management and Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., above list. They are also available for Budget, New Executive Office Building, review in the Commission’s Public Washington, DC 20503. Deputy Secretary. Reference Room in Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 2011–21354 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] There is an eSubscription link on the Leneta G. Gregorie, at the FDIC address BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Web site that enables subscribers to above. receive e-mail notification when a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: document is added to a subscribed DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposal to renew the following docket(s). For assistance with any FERC currently approved collections of Federal Energy Regulatory Online service, please e-mail information: Commission [email protected]. or call 1. Title: Notification of Performance of (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Bank Services. [Docket No. ER11–4307–000] (202) 502–8659. OMB Number: 3064–0029. Dated: August 16, 2011. Form Number: FDIC 6120/06. Green Mountain Energy Company; Frequency of Response: On occasion. Supplemental Notice That Initial Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Affected Public: Business or other Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Deputy Secretary. financial institutions. Request for Blanket Section 204 [FR Doc. 2011–21352 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Estimated Number of Respondents: Authorization BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 412. Estimated Time per Response: 1⁄2 This is a supplemental notice in the hour. above-referenced proceeding of Green Total Annual Burden: 206 hours. Mountain Energy Company’s FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION General Description of Collection: application for market-based rate Insured state nonmember banks are authority, with an accompanying rate Agency Information Collection required to notify the FDIC, under tariff, noting that such application Activities: Proposed Collection section 7 of the Bank Service includes a request for blanket Renewals; Comment Request Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1867), of the authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of relationship with a bank service future issuances of securities and AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance corporation. Form FDIC 6120/06 assumptions of liability. Corporation (FDIC). (Notification of Performance of Bank Any person desiring to intervene or to ACTION: Notice and request for comment. Services) may be used by banks to protest should file with the Federal satisfy the notification requirement. Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 SUMMARY: The FDIC, as part of its 2. Title: Account Based Disclosures in First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, continuing effort to reduce paperwork Connection with Federal Reserve in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 and respondent burden, invites the Regulations E, CC, and DD. of the Commission’s Rules of Practice general public and other Federal OMB Number: 3064–0084. and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and agencies to take this opportunity to Frequency of Response: On occasion. 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to comment on renewal of an existing Affected Public: State chartered banks intervene or protest must serve a copy information collection, as required by that are not members of the Federal of that document on the Applicant. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Reserve System. Notice is hereby given that the (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Currently, the Estimated Number of Respondents: deadline for filing protests with regard FDIC is soliciting comments on renewal 5,192.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52327

Annual Burden: Regulation E—29,404 occur. Depository institutions that the date of this Notice. If any person hours; Regulation CC—528,513 hours; provide periodic statements are required wishes to comment concerning the and Regulation DD—302,434 hours. to include information about fees termination of the receivership, such Total Estimated Burden: 860,351 imposed, interest earned, and the comment must be made in writing and hours. annual percentage yield (APY) earned sent within thirty days of the date of General Description of Collection: during those statement periods. It also this Notice to: This FDIC information collection contains rules about advertising deposit provides for the application of accounts. Although the FRB regulations Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Regulations E (Electronic Fund require institutions to retain evidence of Division of Resolutions and Transfers), CC (Availability of Funds), compliance with the disclosure Receiverships, Attention: and DD (Truth in Savings) to State requirements, the regulations do not Receivership Oversight Department nonmember banks. Regulations E, CC, specify the types of records that must be 8.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX and DD are issued by the Federal retained. 75201. Reserve Board of Governors (FRB) to Request for Comment No comments concerning the ensure, among other things, that termination of this receivership will be consumers are provided adequate Comments are invited on: (a) Whether considered which are not sent within disclosures regarding accounts, the collection of information is this time frame. including electronic fund transfer necessary for the proper performance of services, availability of funds, and fees the FDIC’s functions, including whether Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. and annual percentage yield for deposit the information has practical utility; (b) Dated: August 16, 2011. accounts. Generally, the Regulation E the accuracy of the estimates of the Robert E. Feldman, disclosures are designed to ensure burden of the information collection, Executive Secretary. consumers receive adequate disclosure including the validity of the [FR Doc. 2011–21277 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] of basic terms, costs, and rights relating methodology and assumptions used; (c) BILLING CODE 6714–01–P to electronic fund transfer (EFT) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and services provided to them so that they clarity of the information to be can make informed decisions. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE Institutions offering EFT services must burden of the information collection on CORPORATION disclose to consumers certain respondents, including through the use information, including: initial and of automated collection techniques or Notice to All Interested Parties of the updated EFT terms, transaction other forms of information technology. Termination of the Receivership of information, the consumer’s potential All comments will become a matter of 10004, Hume Bank; Hume, MO liability for unauthorized transfers, and public record. error resolution rights and procedures. Notice is hereby given that the Federal Dated at Washington, DC this 16th day of Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) Like Regulation E, Regulation CC has August 2011. consumer protection disclosure as Receiver for Hume Bank, (‘‘the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Receiver’’) intends to terminate its requirements. Specifically, Regulation Robert E. Feldman, CC requires depository institutions to receivership for said institution. The Executive Secretary. make funds deposited in transaction FDIC was appointed receiver of Hume accounts available within specified time [FR Doc. 2011–21280 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Bank on March 7, 2008. The liquidation periods, disclose their availability BILLING CODE 6714–01–P of the receivership assets has been policies to customers, and begin completed. To the extent permitted by accruing interest on such deposits available funds and in accordance with FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE promptly. The disclosures are intended law, the Receiver will be making a final CORPORATION to alert customers that their ability to dividend payment to proven creditors. use deposited funds may be delayed, Notice to All Interested Parties of the Based upon the foregoing, the prevent unintentional (and costly) Termination of the Receivership of Receiver has determined that the overdrafts, and allow customers to 6004, Superior Bank, FSB, Hinsdale, IL continued existence of the receivership compare the policies of different will serve no useful purpose. institutions before deciding at which Notice is hereby given that the Federal Consequently, notice is given that the institution to deposit funds. Depository Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) receivership shall be terminated, to be institutions must also provide an as Receiver for Superior Bank, FSB, effective no sooner than thirty days after awareness disclosure regarding (‘‘the Receiver’’) intends to terminate its the date of this Notice. If any person substitute checks. The regulation also receivership for said institution. The wishes to comment concerning the requires notice to the depositary bank FDIC was appointed receiver of termination of the receivership, such and to a customer of nonpayment of a Superior Bank, FSB on July 27, 2001. comment must be made in writing and check. Regulation DD also has similar The liquidation of the receivership sent within thirty days of the date of consumer protection disclosure assets has been completed. To the extent this Notice to: Federal Deposit requirements that are intended to assist permitted by available funds and in Insurance Corporation, Division of consumers in comparing deposit accordance with law, the Receiver will Resolutions and Receiverships, accounts offered by institutions, be making a final dividend payment to Attention: Receivership Oversight principally through the disclosure of proven creditors. Department 8.1, 1601 Bryan Street, fees, the annual percentage yield, and Based upon the foregoing, the Dallas, TX 75201. other account terms. Regulation DD Receiver has determined that the requires depository institutions to continued existence of the receivership No comments concerning the disclose yields, fees, and other terms will serve no useful purpose. termination of this receivership will be concerning deposit accounts to Consequently, notice is given that the considered which are not sent within consumers at account opening, upon receivership shall be terminated, to be this timeframe. request, and when changes in terms effective no sooner than thirty days after Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Dated: August 17, 2011. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Army physician who managed control Robert E. Feldman, HUMAN SERVICES efforts of yellow fever, malaria and other diseases during the building of the Executive Secretary. [CFDA 93.019] [FR Doc. 2011–21324 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Panama Canal. GMI contributes to BILLING CODE 6714–01–P Single Source Cooperative Agreement improve the health of the population of Award for the Gorgas Memorial Panama and Central America by acting Institute of Health Studies as a national reference public health laboratory to diagnose diseases like FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM AGENCY: Office of Policy and Planning yellow fever, malaria, measles, (OPP), Office of the Assistant Secretary tuberculosis, arbovirus febrile illness, Formations of, Acquisitions by, and for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), viral encephalitidies, influenza, dengue, Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Department of Health and Human hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome, Services (HHS). and all endemic viral and bacterial The companies listed in this notice ACTION: Notice. diseases. Most recently GMI became a have applied to the Board for approval, World Bank-Pan-American Health pursuant to the Bank Holding Company SUMMARY: In FY2011, HHS/ASPR/OPP Organization reference laboratory for Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) plans to provide a Single Source human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part Cooperative Agreement Award to GMI for the Central American region. GMI 225), and all other applicable statutes to strengthen Panama’s laboratory has well-established laboratories of and regulations to become a bank diagnostic capacity for emerging virology, parasitology, immunology, holding company and/or to acquire the infectious disease threats including genomics, entomology and food and assets or the ownership of, control of, or select bio-terrorism agents and novel water chemistry. GMI also has the power to vote shares of a bank or influenza viruses. The amount of Single departments of epidemiology and bank holding company and all of the Source award is $200,000. The project biostatistics, chronic disease studies, banks and nonbanking companies period is: September 30, 2011 to health policy, and health and human owned by the bank holding company, September 29, 2012. reproduction studies. This including the companies listed below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: infrastructure positions GMI as a key ASPR will exercise sole The applications listed below, as well institution in Panama’s national administrative oversight of this as other related filings required by the research and public health systems. cooperative agreement. ASPR will also Board, are available for immediate In 2006, GMI signed a Memorandum collaborate with HHS–Centers for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank of Understanding (MOU) with HHS to Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to indicated. The application also will be identify joint opportunities to improve coordinate the provision of technical available for inspection at the offices of preparedness for and response to expertise needed for GMI to become a the Board of Governors. Interested infectious diseases, placing specific member of the LRN. GMI will then persons may express their views in emphasis on influenza and other implement critical laboratory diagnostic writing on the standards enumerated in respiratory diseases. To further the goals capacities, including personnel training the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the of the MOU, GMI was awarded two and infrastructure improvement to meet proposal also involves the acquisition of cooperative agreements by HHS–ASPR the standards to become an to increase its virology diagnostic a nonbanking company, the review also international affiliate of LRN. capacity and strengthen the surveillance includes whether the acquisition of the This collaboration seeks to expand the of influenza virus in Panama and nonbanking company complies with the laboratory diagnostic capacity of Central American, and to develop a standards in section 4 of the BHC Act Panama and the Central American Regional Health Care Training Center (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise Region as GMI is a national and regional (RHCTC) for health care workers of the noted, nonbanking activities will be reference laboratory for several Central American and Caribbean region. conducted throughout the United States. infectious diseases. The work will be These cooperative agreements helped to Unless otherwise noted, comments performed to support the establish the first country-wide sentinel regarding each of these applications implementation of the World Health influenza surveillance network, and a must be received at the Reserve Bank Organization (WHO)’s International BSL–3 laboratory virology suite that was indicated or the offices of the Board of Health Regulations [IHR (2005)] in built and inaugurated in 2010. In Governors not later than September 16, Panama and in the context of Article 44 addition, complementary 2011. of the IHR (2005), which directs State epidemiological and laboratory training A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Parties to collaborate with each other to efforts took place at the RHCTC City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice detect, assess, and respond to events, benefitting more than 5,000 President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas and to develop, strengthen, and professionals from Panama, Belize, City, Missouri 64198–0001: maintain core capacities for disease Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 1. American State Bancshares, Inc., surveillance and response to public Honduras and Nicaragua, and Great Bend, Kansas; to acquire 100 health emergencies. Dominican Republic. Based on the capacities developed under these percent of the voting shares of Rose Hill Single Source Justification Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly projects, the GMI was designated as acquire voting shares of Rose Hill Bank, GMI is a public health institution Panama’s ‘‘National Influenza Center’’ both in Rose Hill, Kansas. within the Ministry of Health of Panama by the World Health Organization which provides research, public health (WHO). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve services and advice on public health By supporting GMI to become a System, August 17, 2011. policy development. It was created in qualified member of the LRN, the USG Robert deV. Frierson, 1928 and was primarily funded by the will increase its international network Deputy Secretary of the Board. United State Government (USG) until of laboratories that are fully equipped to [FR Doc. 2011–21339 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 1991. GMI was named after General detect, assess and report the outbreak of BILLING CODE 6210–01–P William Crawford Gorgas, the U.S. emerging infectious diseases including

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52329

novel influenza viruses and biological The Director, Management Analysis Prevention and Health Promotion agents that pose a threat to global public and Services Office, has been delegated (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control health. Through this international the authority to sign Federal Register and Prevention (CDC). collaboration ASPR will capitalize on notices pertaining to announcements of Background and Brief Description GMI’s influential position as an meetings and other committee important regional partner on disease management activities, for both the There have been increasing calls in surveillance efforts and public health Centers for Disease Control and the fields of public health generally and emergency preparedness. This new Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic cancer control specifically for the cooperative agreement will help to Substances and Disease Registry. dissemination, adoption, and implementation of evidence-based further strengthen laboratory diagnostic Dated: August 12, 2011. capacity in Panama and other countries practices (EBPs). EBPs are public health Elizabeth Millington, practices (interventions, programs, in the region. GMI’s strong collaborative Acting Director, Management Analysis and relationships with neighboring strategies, policies, procedures, Services Office, Centers for Disease Control processes, and/or activities) that have governments, as well as its training and Prevention. capabilities, and laboratory been tested or evaluated and shown to [FR Doc. 2011–21413 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] be effective. However, while the infrastructure will be critical for the BILLING CODE 4163–18–P viability of this partnership. In addition, development, review, and compilation this collaboration will support overall of EBPs has steadily increased over HHS efforts to continue building DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND time, there is concern that the adoption capacity abroad with the ultimate intent HUMAN SERVICES and implementation of those practices, of detecting, stopping, slowing or including among cancer control otherwise limiting the threat or actual Centers for Disease Control and planners and practitioners, has not kept spread of bio-terrorism agents or a Prevention pace. Given the gap between the development of EBPs and their use, pandemic to the United States, thereby [60Day–11–11KA] enhancing the health security of the public health and cancer control organizations need to place greater American population. Proposed Data Collections Submitted emphasis on the promotion and for Public Comment and ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The agency dissemination of these practices among Recommendations program contact is Dr. Maria Julia those who can use them to improve Marinissen, who can be contacted at In compliance with the requirement population health. 202–205–4214 or of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the While efforts to promote cancer [email protected]. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for control EBPs have increased, questions Statutory Authority: Sections 301, 307, opportunity for public comment on remain whether these efforts will result 1701 and 2811 of the Public Health Service proposed data collection projects, the in widespread adoption and Act, 42 U.S.C. 241, 242l, 300u, 300hh–10. Centers for Disease Control and implementation of EBPs in the context Dated: August 15, 2011. Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic of comprehensive cancer control (CCC) Nicole Lurie, summaries of proposed projects. To in the states, Tribes, and U.S. Associated Pacific Island Jurisdictions Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and request more information on the Response. proposed projects or to obtain a copy of and territories. National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) [FR Doc. 2011–21294 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] the data collection plans and instruments, call 404–639–5960 and grantees may face a number of BILLING CODE 4150–37–P send comments to Catina Conner, CDC challenges to incorporating EBPs into Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 CCC efforts in their jurisdictions. In order to address these barriers DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA effectively and better promote the use of HUMAN SERVICES 30333 or send an e-mail to [email protected]. EBPs for cancer control, CDC would like Centers for Disease Control and Comments are invited on: (a) Whether to understand (1) how evidence-based Prevention the proposed collection of information approaches are currently being used to is necessary for the proper performance develop CCC plans; (2) how CCC Advisory Board on Radiation and of the functions of the agency, including programs identify EBPs; (3) what EBPs Worker Health: Notice of Charter whether the information shall have have been adopted by CCC programs; Renewal practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the and (4) what challenges and unintended agency’s estimate of the burden of the consequences have been encountered in This gives notice under the Federal proposed collection of information; (c) their implementation. Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– ways to enhance the quality, utility, and CDC plans to conduct a new, one-time 463) of October 6, 1972, that the clarity of the information to be study to examine CCC planners’ use of Advisory Board on Radiation and collected; and (d) ways to minimize the scientific and practice-based Worker Health, Department of Health burden of the collection of information information to inform development of and Human Services, has been renewed on respondents, including through the their CCC plans. Information collection for a 2-year period through August 3, use of automated collection techniques will consist of two Web-based surveys 2013. or other forms of information involving key CCC stakeholders in the For information, contact Mr. technology. Written comments should NCCCP-funded states, Tribes, and U.S. Theodore Katz, Designated Federal be received within 60 days of this Associated Pacific Island Jurisdictions Officer, Advisory Board on Radiation notice. and territories. Respondents for the first and Worker Health, Department of survey will be Directors of the 66 Health and Human Services, 1600 Proposed Project NCCCP-funded programs, who will also Clifton Road, M/S E20, Atlanta, Georgia Use of Evidence-Based Practices for have the opportunity to participate in a 30341, telephone 404/498–2533, or fax Comprehensive Cancer Control—New— follow-up telephone call. Respondents 404/498–2570. National Center for Chronic Disease for the second survey will be key

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52330 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

program partners/collaborators technical assistance needs of NCCCP- future studies. CDC’s authorization to identified by each Program Director (1– funded awardees related to selection conduct the study is provided by 2 partners per Director) as instrumental and implementation of EBPs, and will Section 301 of the Public Health Service to the selection and implementation of contribute to CDC’s efforts to build the Act (42 U.S.C. 241). cancer control EBPs. The survey results capacities of states, Tribes, and Pacific OMB approval will be requested for will help CDC enhance existing NCCCP Island Jurisdictions and territories one year. Participation in the study is efforts by identifying new strategies for toward more effective efforts in cancer voluntary. There are no costs to the promoting the use of evidence-based prevention and control. Finally, the approaches to comprehensive cancer results may lead to new insights and respondents other than their time. control. The surveys will also identify questions that can be addressed in

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Average bur- Number of re- Number of re- den per re- Total response Type of Respondent Form name spondents sponses per sponse burden respondent (in hours) (in hours)

CCC Program Directors ...... Survey Scheduling Script ...... 66 1 15/60 17 Program Directors Web Survey Question- 66 1 0.5 33 naire. Program Directors Telephone Interview 66 1 20/60 22 Guide and Script. CCC Program Partners ...... Program Partners Web Survey Question- 132 1 0.5 66 naire.

Total ...... 138

Catina Conner, Contact Person for More Information: Place: Embassy Suites, 1900 Diagonal Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Bernadine Kuchinski, PhD, Scientific Review Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, Disease Control and Prevention. Officer, Office of Extramural Programs, Telephone: (703) 684–5900, Fax: (703) 684– NIOSH, CDC, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, [FR Doc. 2011–21400 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 0653. 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C–7, Cincinnati, Status: The meeting will be closed to the BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Ohio 45226, Telephone: (513) 533–8511. public in accordance with provisions set The Director, Management Analysis and forth in Section Services Office, has been delegated the 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND authority to sign Federal Register notices Determination of the Director, Management HUMAN SERVICES pertaining to announcements of meetings and Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant other committee management activities, for to Public Law 92–463. Centers for Disease Control and both the Centers for Disease Control and Purpose: The Safety and Occupational Prevention Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Health Study Section will review, discuss, Substances and Disease Registry. and evaluate grant application(s) received in Disease, Disability, and Injury Dated: August 12, 2011. response to the Institute’s standard grants Prevention and Control Special Elizabeth Millington, review and funding cycles pertaining to Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review research issues in occupational safety and Acting Director, Management Analysis and health, and allied areas. Services Office, Centers for Disease Control The meeting announced below It is the intent of NIOSH to support broad- and Prevention. concerns Member Conflict Review, based research endeavors in keeping with the Program Announcement (PA) 07–318, [FR Doc. 2011–21420 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Institute’s program goals. This will lead to initial review. BILLING CODE 4163–18–P improved understanding and appreciation for In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the magnitude of the aggregate health burden the Federal Advisory Committee Act associated with occupational injuries and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND illnesses, as well as to support more focused (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease HUMAN SERVICES research projects, which will lead to Control and Prevention (CDC) improvements in the delivery of occupational announces the aforementioned meeting: Centers for Disease Control and safety and health services, and the Time and Date: 1 p.m.–3 p.m., November Prevention prevention of work-related injury and illness. 9, 2011 (Closed). It is anticipated that research funded will Place: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Occupational Health Study promote these program goals. Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC, 1095 Section (SOHSS), National Institute for Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will Willowdale Road, Morgantown, West Occupational Safety and Health convene to address matters related to the Virginia 26506, Telephone: (304) 285–6143. (NIOSH) conduct of Study Section business and for Status: The meeting will be closed to the the study section to consider safety and public in accordance with provisions set In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of occupational health-related grant forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 the Federal Advisory Committee Act applications. U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease These portions of the meeting will be Management Analysis and Services Office, Control and Prevention (CDC), closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92–463. announces the following meeting of the Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of include the initial review, discussion, and aforementioned committee: the Director, Management Analysis and evaluation of applications received in Times and Dates: Services Office, Centers for Disease Control response to ‘‘Member Conflict Review, PA 8 a.m.–5 p.m., October 18, 2011 (Closed). and Prevention, pursuant to Section 10(d) 07–318.’’ 8 a.m.–5 p.m., October 19, 2011 (Closed). Pub. L. 92–463.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52331

Agenda items are subject to change as DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND requirements must be appropriate, i.e., priorities dictate. HUMAN SERVICES meet all applicable MOE requirements. Contact Person for More Information: Price The Annual MOE Report provides the Connor, PhD, NIOSH Health Scientist, 1600 Administration for Children and ability to learn about and to monitor the Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E–20, Atlanta, Families nature of State and Territory Georgia 30333, Telephone (404) 498–2511, expenditures used to meet States and Fax (404) 498–2571. Proposed Information Collection Territories MOE requirements, and it is The Director, Management Analysis and Activity; Comment Request an important source of information Services Office, has been delegated the Proposed Projects about the different ways that States and authority to sign Federal Register notices Territories are using their resources to pertaining to announcements of meetings and Title: Annual Report/ACF 204 (State help families attain and maintain self- other committee management activities for MOE)—1 collection. sufficiency. In addition, the report is OMB No.: 0970–0248. both the Centers for Disease Control and used to obtain State and Territory Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Description program characteristics for ACFs annual Substances and Disease Registry. The Administration for Children and report to Congress, and the report serves Dated: August 12, 2011. Families (ACF) is requesting a three- as a useful resource to use in Congressional hearings about how Elizabeth Millington, year extension of the ACF–204 (Annual MOE Report). The report is used to TANF programs are evolving, in Acting Director, Management Analysis and assessing State the Territory MOE Services Office, Centers for Disease Control collect descriptive program characteristics information on the expenditures, and in assessing the need and Prevention. for legislative changes. [FR Doc. 2011–21410 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] programs operated by States and Territories in association with their BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Respondents Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs. All State The 50 States of the United States, the and Territory expenditures claimed District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto toward States and Territories MOE Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

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

ACF–204 ...... 54 1 128 6,912

Estimated Total Annual Burden information to be collected; and (d) Description Hours: 6,912. ways to minimize the burden In compliance with the requirements information to be collected; and (d) The State plan is a mandatory of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork ways to minimize the burden of the statement submitted to the Secretary of Reduction Act of 1995, the collection of information on the Department of Health and Human Administration for Children and respondents, including through the use Services by the State. It consists of an Families is soliciting public comment of automated collection techniques or outline specifying how the state’s TANF on the specific aspects of the other forms of information technology. program will be administered and information collection described above. Consideration will be given to operated and certain required Copies of the proposed collection of comments and suggestions submitted certifications by the State’s Chief information can be obtained and within 60 days of this publication. Executive Officer. It is used to provide comments may be forwarded by writing the public with information about the to the Administration for Children and Robert Sargis, program. Families, Office of Planning, Research Reports Clearance Officer. Authority to require States to submit and Evaluation, 370 L’Enfant [FR Doc. 2011–21317 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] a State TANF plan is contained in Promenade, SW., Washington, DC BILLING CODE 4184–01–P section 402 of the Social Security Act, 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance as amended by Public Law 104–193, the Officer. E-mail address: Personal Responsibility and Work [email protected]. All requests DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. should be identified by the title of the HUMAN SERVICES information collection. States are required to submit new plans periodically (i.e., within a 27-month The Department specifically requests Administration for Children and period). comments on: (a) Whether the proposed Families collection of information is necessary We are proposing to continue the for the proper performance of the Submission for OMB Review; information collection without change. functions of the agency, including Comment Request Respondents whether the information shall have Title: State Plan for the Temporary practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the The 50 States of the United States, the Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). agency’s estimate of the burden of the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto proposed collection of information; (c) OMB No.: 0970–0145. Rico, and the Virgin Islands. the quality, utility, and clarity of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52332 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

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

Title Amendments ...... 18 1 3 54 State TANF plan ...... 18 1 30 540

Estimated Total Annual Burden ACTION: Notice. target audiences. The data will not be Hours: 594. used for the purposes of making policy SUMMARY: The Food and Drug or regulatory decisions. Additional Information Administration (FDA) is announcing Copies of the proposed collection may that a proposed collection of The information collected will serve be obtained by writing to the information has been submitted to the two major purposes. First, as formative Administration for Children and Office of Management and Budget research it will provide the critical Families, Office of Planning, Research (OMB) for review and clearance under knowledge needed about target and Evaluation, 370 L’Enfant the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. audiences. FDA must explore Promenade, SW., Washington, DC DATES: Fax written comments on the audiences’ beliefs, perceptions, and 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance collection of information by September decisionmaking processes on specific Officer. All requests should be 21, 2011. topics in order to meet the basic identified by the title of the information ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on objectives of its risk communication collection. E-mail address: the information collection are received, campaigns. Such knowledge will [email protected]. OMB recommends that written provide the needed target audience OMB Comment comments be faxed to the Office of understanding to design effective Information and Regulatory Affairs, communication strategies, messages, OMB is required to make a decision OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: and product labels. These concerning the collection of information 202–395–7285, or e-mailed to communications will aim to improve between 30 and 60 days after [email protected]. All public understanding of the risks and publication of this document in the comments should be identified with the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment benefits of using various FDA-regulated OMB control number 0910–New and products by providing users with a is best assured of having its full effect title: ‘‘Data to Support Communications if OMB receives it within 30 days of better context in which to place risk Usability Testing, as Used by the Food information more completely. publication. Written comments and and Drug Administration.’’ Also include recommendations for the proposed the FDA docket number found in Second, as pretesting, it will give FDA information collection should be sent brackets in the heading of this some information about the potential directly to the following: document. effectiveness of messages and materials Office of Management and Budget, in reaching and successfully FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paperwork Reduction Project. Fax: 202– communicating with their intended Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of 395–7285. E-mail: audiences. Testing messages with a [email protected]. Information Management, Food and sample of the target audience will allow Attn: Desk Officer for the Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., FDA to refine messages while still in the Administration for Children and PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301– Families. 796–7651, developmental stage. Respondents may [email protected]. be asked to give their reaction to the Robert Sargis, messages in person or on-line. Reports Clearance Officer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA FDA’s Centers and Offices will use [FR Doc. 2011–21316 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] has submitted the following proposed this mechanism to test the usability of BILLING CODE 4184–01–P collection of information to OMB for messages about FDA-regulated products review and clearance. for consumers, patients, industry representatives, or health care DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Data To Support Communications professionals. The data will not be used HUMAN SERVICES Usability Testing, as Used by the Food for the purposes of making policy or and Drug Administration—(OMB regulatory decisions. Food and Drug Administration Control Number 0910–New) In the Federal Register of June 10, [Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0591] FDA plans to use the data collected under this generic clearance to inform 2011 (76 FR 34083), FDA published a Agency Information Collection its communications campaigns on a 60-day notice requesting public Activities; Submission for Office of variety of topics related to products that comment on the proposed collection of Management and Budget Review; FDA regulates. FDA expects the data to information. No comments were Comment Request; Data To Support received. Communications Usability Testing, as help staff message developers achieve Used by the Food and Drug FDA communication objectives. FDA FDA estimates the burden of this Administration also plans to use the data to help tailor collection of information as follows: print, broadcast, and electronic media AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, communications in order for them to HHS. have powerful and desired impacts on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52333

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1

Average Number of Number of Total annual burden per Survey type respondents responses per responses response Total hours respondent (in hours)

In-Person Surveys ...... 7,500 1 7,500 1 7,500 Remote Online Surveys ...... 67,000 1 67,000 30/60 33,500 Screener Only 2 ...... 500 1 500 5/60 42

Total ...... 41,042 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 These participants take the screener (which will be comprised of Demographic and/or Introductory Questions, attachments 5 and 6) but are not selected for the full survey.

There will be two lengths of surveys Dated: August 17, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: conducted, depending on whether the Leslie Kux, Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information survey is in-person or remote and Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. Management, Food and Drug online. An in-person survey will last an [FR Doc. 2011–21379 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50– average of 60 minutes and take place at BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796– an FDA computer or at a 5156, [email protected]. nongovernmental location; a remote survey will last approximately 30 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the minutes and take place at the HUMAN SERVICES PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal participant’s computer. These estimates Agencies must obtain approval from the were determined through analysis of Food and Drug Administration Office of Management and Budget times from previous usability surveys (OMB) for each collection of using similar questions, a survey of [Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0553] information they conduct or sponsor. usability professionals to ascertain ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined average times for users to perform tasks, Agency Information Collection in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR and a pilot survey of 10 internal users Activities; Proposed Collection; 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests comprised of staff from the Centers for Comment Request; Tobacco Product or requirements that members of the Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Reporting Violation Form public submit reports, keep records, or and CDC contractors. Some remote AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, provide information to a third party. surveys will take much less time. The HHS. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 majority of usability surveys conducted ACTION: Notice. U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal at CDC were done remotely; thus FDA Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in estimates that in the future more SUMMARY: The Food and Drug the Federal Register concerning each surveys will be done remotely rather Administration (FDA) is announcing an proposed collection of information than in person. opportunity for public comment on the before submitting the collection to OMB Estimate of survey respondents was proposed collection of certain for approval. To comply with this based on an estimate of the ideal information by the Agency. Under the requirement, FDA is publishing notice number of usability surveys that FDA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the of the proposed collection of would conduct over a 3-year period. PRA), Federal Agencies are required to information set forth in this document. Factored in were initial surveys and publish notice in the Federal Register With respect to the following subsequent followup surveys utilizing a concerning each proposed collection of collection of information, FDA invites satisfactory level of participants. information and to allow 60 days for Because FDA has not conducted these public comment in response to the comments on these topics: (1) Whether types of surveys at the level needed notice. This notice solicits comments on the proposed collection of information previously, it is anticipated that most of the collection of information contained is necessary for the proper performance FDA’s communications will require in FDA’s Tobacco Product Reporting of FDA’s functions, including whether some sort of usability survey. Violation Form. the information will have practical Additionally, FDA anticipates DATES: Submit either electronic or utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA’s conducting a number of important written comments on the collection of estimate of the burden of the proposed baseline surveys for its home Web page information by October 21, 2011. collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and and other highly trafficked subsites in ADDRESSES: Submit electronic order to redesign these pages as part of comments on the collection of assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance FDA’s priority to more effectively utilize information to http:// the quality, utility, and clarity of the its Web site. www.regulations.gov. Submit written information to be collected; and (4) Annually, FDA projects about 125 comments on the collection of ways to minimize the burden of the studies using the variety of test methods information to the Division of Dockets collection of information on listed previously. FDA is requesting this Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug respondents, including through the use burden so as not to restrict the Agency’s Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. of automated collection techniques, ability to gather information on public 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All when appropriate, and other forms of sentiment for its proposals in its comments should be identified with the information technology. regulatory and communications docket number found in brackets in the programs. heading of this document.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Tobacco Product Reporting Violation Control Act. Callers are able to report eventually replace current form FDA Form (OMB Control Number 0910– potential violations of the Tobacco Form 3734 for Cigarette Flavor Ban NEW) Control Act and FDA will conduct Violations. This new form will be On June 22, 2009, the President targeted followup investigation based on posted on FDA’s Web site, and signed the Family Smoking Prevention information received. When callers information may be submitted by filling and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco report a violation, the caller will be out the form online (or the public can Control Act) (Pub. L. 111–31) into law. asked to provide as much certain request a copy of Form 3779 by The Tobacco Control Act amended the information as they can recall, contacting the Center for Tobacco Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act including: The date the potential Products (CTP)). In addition, FDA has (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) by violation happened, the product type developed a smartphone application for adding a new chapter granting FDA (e.g., cigarette, smokeless, roll-your- use with iPhones, Android, etc. to allow important new authority to regulate the own, etc.), tobacco brand, type of consumers to report potential violations manufacture, marketing, and potentially violative promotional to FDA via their smartphone. Others distribution of tobacco products to materials, potential violation type, who may simply choose to send a letter to protect the public health generally and potentially violated, and the name, FDA with their information. In to reduce tobacco use by minors. address, phone number, and e-mail summary, the public will be able to FDA is requesting OMB approval for address of the potential violator. The report information regarding possible a new collection of information to caller will also be asked to list the violations of the Tobacco Control Act accept consumer and other stakeholder potential violator’s Web site (if through the following methods: calling feedback and notification of potential available), describe the potential the Tobacco Call Center using CTP’s violations of the FD&C Act, as amended violation, and provide any additional toll-free number; using a fill-able form by the Tobacco Control Act. files or information pertinent to the found on FDA’s Web site; using FDA’s As part of its enforcement strategy, potential violation. FDA has developed tobacco violation reporting smartphone FDA created a Tobacco Call Center a form that will be used to solicit this application, and sending a letter to (with a toll-free number: 1–877–CTP– information from the caller (FDA Form FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. 1373) to accept information from the 3779, Tobacco Product Violations FDA estimates the burden of this public about violations of the Tobacco Reporting), which is expected to collection of information as follows:

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1

Number of Average Activity and FDA Form 3779 Number of responses per Total annual burden per Total hours respondents respondent responses response

Reporting violations of the FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act by telephone, Internet form, smartphone application, or mail ...... 1,000 1 1,000 0.167 167 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

FDA estimates that submitting the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information (by phone, Internet form, HUMAN SERVICES Philip A. Bautista, Center for Drug smartphone application, or mail) will Evaluation and Research, Food and take 10 minutes. Since a similar type of Food and Drug Administration Drug Administration, 10903 New reporting went into effect for the Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 2417, [Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0002] cigarette flavor ban, FDA has received Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301– several reports via the Internet or e-mail. Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice 796–9001, FAX 301–827–8533, e-mail: Judging from the rate of reporting for the of Postponement of Meeting [email protected], or FDA Advisory cigarette flavor ban, FDA estimates the Committee Information Line, 1–800– number of respondents will be 1,000 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the who will submit 1 report each annually HHS. Washington, DC area), and follow the by phone, Internet form, smartphone ACTION: Notice. prompts to the desired center or product application, or mail. Because of the area. Please call the Information Line for SUMMARY: The Food and Drug variety of products regulated by FDA up-to-date information on this meeting. Administration (FDA) is postponing the under the authority of the FD&C Act, as Arthritis Advisory Committee meeting Dated: August 17, 2011. amended by the Tobacco Control Act, scheduled for September 13, 2011. This Leslie Kux, FDA expects the rate of calls and reports meeting was announced in the Federal received to remain steady over the next Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. Register of July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42715). [FR Doc. 2011–21380 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 3 years. The postponement is due to the fact that BILLING CODE 4160–01–P Dated: August 17, 2011. the Agency recently received Leslie Kux, submissions from some of the investigational new drug (IND) Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. application holders for anti-nerve [FR Doc. 2011–21381 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] growth factor (Anti-NGF) antibody drug BILLING CODE 4160–01–P products that contain large quantities of new information that will require additional time for Agency review prior to the advisory committee meeting.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52335

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Reports Clearance Office on (301) 443– insurance coverage. It is proposed that HUMAN SERVICES 1129. the application forms be modified to The following request has been comply with the Patient Protection and Health Resources and Services submitted to the Office of Management Affordable Care Act section 10608, Administration and Budget for review under the amending 42 U.S.C. 233(o)(1), as well as Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: Agency Information Collection upgrade the application to provide for Activities: Submission for OMB Proposed Project: Free Clinics FTCA an electronic submission. The Review; Comment Request Program Application (OMB No. 0915– modifications include: (1) Inclusion of 0293)—[Revision] board members, officers, employees, Periodically, the Health Resources and contractors into one comprehensive and Services Administration (HRSA) Under 42 U.S.C. 233(o) and HRSA application, and (2) a fully electronic publishes abstracts of information BPHC Policy Information Notice 2011– application that can be submitted collection requests under review by the 02, ‘‘Free Clinics Federal Tort Claims electronically via email or the internet. Office of Management and Budget Act (FTCA) Program Policy Guide,’’ the It is anticipated that these modifications (OMB), in compliance with the FTCA Free Clinic Program requires free will decrease the time and effort Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 clinics to submit annual, renewal, and required by the current OMB approved U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of supplemental applications for the FTCA application forms. the clearance requests submitted to process of deeming qualified health care OMB for review, e-mail professionals, board members, officers, The annual estimate of burden is as [email protected] or call the HRSA and contractors for FTCA malpractice follows:

Responses Total Hours per Total burden Instrument Number of per respondents respondent responses response hours

Free Clinics FTCA Program Application ...... 200 1 200 14 2800

Total ...... 200 ...... 200 ...... 2800

Written comments and Name: National Advisory Committee on Healthcare Center in New Augusta, Perry recommendations concerning the Rural Health and Human Services. County; and the Physician Payment Value proposed information collection should Dates and Time: Modifier Subcommittee will visit the be sent within 30 days of the date of this September 26, 2011, 12:30 p.m.–5 p.m. Covington County Hospital in Collins, notice to the desk officer for HRSA, September 27, 2011, 8:45 a.m.–4 p.m. Mississippi. The Care Transitions and ADRC either by e-mail to September 28, 2011, 8:45 a.m.–10:30 a.m. Subcommittee will visit Forrest General _ Place: Forrest General Hospital, 6051 US Hospital in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The OIRA [email protected] or by Highway 40, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401. Subcommittees will return to the Forrest fax to 202–395–6974. Please direct all Phone: (601) 288–7000. correspondence to the ‘‘attention of the The meeting will be open to the public. General Hospital in Hattiesburg at 3:30 p.m. desk officer for HRSA.’’ Purpose: The National Advisory Transportation to the site visits will not be Committee on Rural Health and Human provided to the public. The Tuesday meeting Dated: August 16, 2011. Services provides advice and will close at 4 p.m. Reva Harris, recommendations to the Secretary with The final session will be convened on Acting Director, Division of Policy and respect to the delivery, research, Wednesday morning at 8:45 a.m. The Information Coordination. development, and administration of health meeting will open with a review of the [FR Doc. 2011–21428 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] and human services in rural areas. Subcommittee site visits. The Chair of the Agenda: Monday morning, at 12:30 p.m., Committee will lead a Working Session to BILLING CODE 4165–15–P the meeting will be called to order by the discuss development of the Report to the Chairperson of the Committee, the Honorable Secretary. The Committee will draft a letter Ronnie Musgrove. The first two presentations to the Secretary and discuss the agenda for DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND will be overviews of rural Mississippi and the February 2012 meeting. The meeting will HUMAN SERVICES the Mississippi State Office of Rural Health. The remainder of the day the Committee will be adjourned at 10:30 a.m. Health Resources and Services hear presentations on the three chosen For Further Information Contact: Steve Administration Subcommittee topics. The first panel will Hirsch, MSLS, Executive Secretary, National focus on Health Disparities in Rural Advisory Committee on Rural Health and National Advisory Committee on Rural Communities. The second panel is Physician Human Services, Health Resources and Health and Human Services; Notice of Payment Value Modifier. The final panel of Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Meeting the day is Care Transition and Aging and Room 5A–05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Disability Resource Center Program (ADRC). MD 20857, Telephone (301) 443–0835, Fax After the panel discussions, the Committee (301) 443–2803. In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Chair will give an overview of the site visits. the Federal Advisory Committee Act Persons interested in attending any portion This will be followed by a call for public of the meeting should contact Aaron Wingad (Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is comment. The Monday meeting will close at at the Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP) made of the following National 5 p.m. via Telephone at (301) 443–0835 or by e-mail Advisory body scheduled to meet Tuesday morning, at 8:45 a.m., Steve at [email protected]. The Committee during the month of September 2011. Hirsch, Executive Secretariat for the NACRHHS, will provide a Departmental meeting agenda will be posted on ORHP’s The National Advisory Committee on Update. At 9:15 a.m., the Committee will Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi- Rural Health will convene its sixty- break into Subcommittees and depart to the in/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.htm ninth meeting in the time and place site visits. The Health Disparities l&log=linklog&to=http:// specified below: Subcommittee will visit a Federally Qualified www.ruralhealth.hrsa.gov.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52336 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Dated: August 16, 2011. Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., (2) Mail: DMF (M–30), DOT, West Reva Harris, Washington, DC 20007. Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Acting Director, Division of Policy and Contact Person: Peter B. Guthrie, PhD, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Information Coordination. Scientific Review Officer, Center for Washington, DC 20590–0001. Scientific Review, National Institutes of [FR Doc. 2011–21432 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4182, (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail BILLING CODE 4165–15–P MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435– address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 1239. [email protected]. p.m., Monday through Friday, except (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Federal holidays. The telephone number DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; is 202–366–9329. HUMAN SERVICES 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. To ensure 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, your comments are received in a timely National Institutes of Health 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Institutes of Health, HHS) Officer for the Coast Guard. Center For Scientific Review; Notice of The DMF maintains the public docket Closed Meetings Dated: August 16, 2011. Jennifer S. Spaeth, for this Notice. Comments and material Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Director, Office of Federal Advisory received from the public, as well as Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Committee Policy. documents mentioned in this Notice as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is [FR Doc. 2011–21367 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be hereby given of the following meetings. BILLING CODE 4140–01–P The meetings will be closed to the available for inspection or copying at public in accordance with the room W12–140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, provisions set forth in sections DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., SECURITY as amended. The grant applications and and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, the discussions could disclose Coast Guard except Federal holidays. You may also confidential trade secrets or commercial find the docket on the Internet at property such as patentable material, [USCG–2011–0737; OMB Control Numbers: http://www.regulations.gov. and personal information concerning 1625–0032, 1625–0094 and 1625–0096] Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at individuals associated with the grant Information Collection Requests to http://www.regulations.gov. applications, the disclosure of which Office of Management and Budget would constitute a clearly unwarranted Additionally, copies are available from: invasion of personal privacy. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. COMMANDANT (CG–611), ATTN Name of Committee: Center for Scientific ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member comments. MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2100 Conflict: Epidemiology. 2ND ST SW. STOP 7101, Date: September 7, 2011. SUMMARY: In compliance with the WASHINGTON, DC 20593–7101. Time: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: applications. U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Information Collection Requests (ICRs) Information Management, telephone Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. to the Office of Management and Budget 202–475–3652, or fax 202–475–3929, for (Telephone Conference Call.) (OMB), Office of Information and questions on these documents. Contact Contact Person: Denise Wiesch, PhD, Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Scientific Review Officer, Center for approval of revisions to the following Docket Operations, 202–366–9826, for Scientific Review, National Institutes of collections of information: 1625–0032, questions on the docket. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3150, Vessel Inspection Related Forms and MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 0684. [email protected]. Reporting Requirements Under Title 46 U.S. Code; 1625–0094, Ships Carrying Public Participation and Request for Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Mechanisms Bulk Hazardous Liquids; and 1625– Comments of Excitability, Pain and Infection in the CNS. 0096, Report of Oil or Hazardous This Notice relies on the authority of Date: September 26–27, 2011. Substance Discharge; and Report of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Suspicious Maritime Activity. Our ICRs 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An Agenda: To review and evaluate grant describe the information we seek to ICR is an application to OIRA seeking applications. collect from the public. Before Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 the approval, extension, or renewal of a submitting these ICRs to OIRA, the Coast Guard collection of information Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. Coast Guard is inviting comments as (Virtual Meeting.) (Collection). The ICR contains Contact Person: Suzan Nadi, PhD, described below. information describing the Collection’s Scientific Review Officer, Center for DATES: Comments must reach the Coast purpose, the Collection’s likely burden Scientific Review, National Institutes of Guard on or before October 21, 2011. on the affected public, an explanation of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5217B, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the necessity of the Collection, and MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301–435– identified by Coast Guard docket other important information describing 1259. [email protected]. number [USCG–2011–0737] to the the Collections. There is one ICR for Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular Docket Management Facility (DMF) at each Collection. and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated the U.S. Department of Transportation The Coast Guard invites comments on Review Group, Neurotransporters, Receptors, and Calcium Signaling Study Section. (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, whether these ICRs should be granted Date: September 26–27, 2011. please use only one of the following based on the Collections being Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. means: necessary for the proper performance of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant (1) Online: http:// Departmental functions. In particular, applications. www.regulations.gov. the Coast Guard would appreciate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52337

comments addressing: (1) The practical comments by mail and would like to hazardous liquids on chemical tank utility of the Collections; (2) the know that they reached the Facility, vessels and to protect the environment accuracy of the estimated burden of the please enclose a stamped, self-addressed from pollution. Collections; (3) ways to enhance the postcard or envelope. We will consider Need: Under 46 U.S.C. 3703, the Coast quality, utility, and clarity of all comments and material received Guard is authorized to prescribe information subject to the Collections; during the comment period and will regulations for protection against and (4) ways to minimize the burden of address them accordingly. hazards to life, property, and navigation the Collections on respondents, Viewing comments and documents: and vessel safety, and protection of the including the use of automated To view comments, as well as marine environment. The regulations for collection techniques or other forms of documents mentioned in this Notice as the safe transport by vessel of certain information technology. In response to being available in the docket, go to bulk dangerous cargoes are contained in your comments, we may revise these http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 46 CFR part 153. ICRs or decide not to seek approval for ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then the Collections. We will consider all become highlighted in blue. In the Forms: CG–4602B, CG–5148, CG– comments and material received during ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– 5148A, CG–5148B and CG–5461. the comment period. 0737’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the Respondents: Owners and operators We encourage you to respond to this ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ of chemical tank vessels. request by submitting comments and column. You may also visit the DMF in Frequency: On occasion. related materials. Comments must Room W12–140 on the ground floor of Burden Estimate: The estimated contain the OMB Control Number of the the DOT West Building, 1200 New burden has increased from 3,410 hours ICR and the docket number of this Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC to 5,291 hours a year. request, [USCG–2011–0737], and must 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., be received by October 21, 2011. We Monday through Friday, except Federal 3. Title: Report of Oil or Hazardous will post all comments received, holidays. Substance Discharge; and Report of without change, to http:// Suspicious Maritime Activity. Privacy Act www.regulations.gov. They will include OMB Control Number: 1625–0096. any personal information you provide. Anyone can search the electronic Summary: Any discharge of oil or a We have an agreement with DOT to use form of comments received in dockets hazardous substance must be reported their DMF. Please see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ by the name of the individual to the National Response Center (NRC) paragraph below. submitting the comment (or signing the so that the pre-designated on-scene comment, if submitted on behalf of an Submitting Comments coordinator can be informed and association, business, labor union, etc.). appropriate spill mitigation action If you submit a comment, please You may review a Privacy Act statement carried out. The NRC also receives include the docket number [USCG– regarding Coast Guard public dockets in suspicious activity reports from the 2011–0737], indicate the specific the January 17, 2008, issue of the public and disseminates this section of the document to which each Federal Register (73 FR 3316). comment applies, providing a reason for information to appropriate entities. each comment. You may submit your Information Collection Requests Need: Titles 33 CFR 153.203, 40 CFR comments and material online (via 1. Title: Vessel Inspection Related 263.30 and 264.56, and 49 CFR 171.15 http://www.regulations.gov), by fax, Forms and Reporting Requirements mandate that the NRC be the central mail, or hand delivery, but please use Under Title 46 U.S. Code. place for the public to report all only one of these means. If you submit OMB Control Number: 1625–0032. pollution spills. Title 33 CFR 101.305 a comment online via http:// Summary: This collection of mandates that owners or operators of www.regulations.gov, it will be information requires owners, operators, those vessels or facilities required to considered received by the Coast Guard agents or masters of certain inspected have security plans, report activities when you successfully transmit the vessels to obtain and/or post various that may result in a Transportation comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or forms as part of the Coast Guard’s Security Incident (TSI) or breaches of mail your comment, it will be Commercial Vessel Safety Program. security to the NRC. Voluntary reports considered as having been received by Need: The Coast Guard’s Commercial are also accepted. the Coast Guard when it is received at Vessel Safety Program regulations are Forms: None. the DMF. We recommend you include found in 46 CFR, including parts 2, 26, your name, mailing address, an e-mail 31, 71, 91, 107, 115, 126, 169, 176 and Respondents: Persons-in-charge of a address, or other contact information in 189, as authorized in Title 46 U.S. Code. vessel or onshore/offshore facility; the body of your document so that we A number of reporting and owners or operators of vessels or can contact you if we have questions recordkeeping requirements are facilities required to have security regarding your submission. contained therein. plans; and the public. You may submit your comments and Forms: CG–841, CG–854, CG–948, Frequency: On occasion. material by electronic means, mail, fax, CG–949, CG–950, CG–950A, CG–2832. or delivery to the DMF at the address Burden Estimate: The estimated Respondents: Owners, operators, burden has decreased from 13,017 hours under ADDRESSES; but please submit agents and masters of vessels. to 12,098 hours a year. them by only one means. To submit Frequency: On occasion. your comment online, go to http:// Burden Estimate: The estimated Dated: August 15, 2011. www.regulations.gov, and type ‘‘USCG- burden has decreased from 1,686 hours R.E. Day, 2011-0737’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box. If to 1,601 hours a year. Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant you submit your comments by mail or 2. Title: Ships Carrying Bulk Commandant for Command, Control, hand delivery, submit them in an Hazardous Liquids. Communications, Computers and unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by OMB Control Number: 1625–0094. Information Technology. 11 inches, suitable for copying and Summary: This information is needed [FR Doc. 2011–21330 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] electronic filing. If you submit to ensure the safe transport of bulk BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52338 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND www.regulations.gov. Additionally, Submitting Comments SECURITY copies are available from: Commandant If you submit a comment, please (CG–611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction include the docket number [USCG– Coast Guard Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2011–0750], indicate the specific 2nd Street, SW., STOP 7101, [USCG–2011–0750] section of the document to which each Washington, DC 20593–7101. comment applies, providing a reason for Information Collection Request to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: each comment. If you submit a comment Office of Management and Budget Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of online via http://www.regulations.gov, it Information Management, telephone will be considered received by the Coast AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 202–475–3652, or fax 202–475–3929, for Guard when you successfully transmit ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting questions on these documents. Contact the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, comments. Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, or mail your comment, it will be Docket Operations, 202–366–9826, for considered as having been received by SUMMARY: In compliance with the questions on the docket. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the the Coast Guard when it is received at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail Information Collection Request (ICR) to Public Participation and Request for address, or other contact information in the Office of Management and Budget Comments (OMB), Office of Information and the body of your document so that we This Notice relies on the authority of can contact you if we have questions Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; approval of revisions to the following regarding your submission. 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An You may submit your comments and collection of information: 1625–0006, ICR is an application to OIRA seeking Shipping Articles. Our ICR describes the material by electronic means, mail, fax, the approval, extension, or renewal of a or hand delivery to the DMF at the information we seek to collect from the Coast Guard collection of information public. Before submitting this ICR to address under ADDRESSES; but please (Collection). The ICR contains submit them by only one means. To OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting information describing the Collection’s comments as described below. submit your comment online, go to purpose, the Collection’s likely burden http://www.regulations.gov, and type DATES: Comments must reach the Coast on the affected public, an explanation of ‘‘USCG–2011–0750’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ Guard on or before October 21, 2011. the necessity of the Collection, and box. If you submit your comments by ADDRESSES: You may submit comments other important information describing mail or hand delivery, submit them in identified by Coast Guard docket the Collection. There is one ICR for each an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 number [USCG–2011–0750] to the Collection. by 11 inches, suitable for copying and Docket Management Facility (DMF) at The Coast Guard invites comments on electronic filing. If you submit the U.S. Department of Transportation whether this ICR should be granted comments by mail and would like to (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, based on the Collection being necessary know that they reached the Facility, please use only one of the following for the proper performance of please enclose a stamped, self-addressed means: Departmental functions. In particular, postcard or envelope. We will consider (1) Online: http:// the Coast Guard would appreciate all comments and material received www.regulations.gov. comments addressing: (1) The practical during the comment period and will (2) Mail: DMF (M–30), DOT, West utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy address them accordingly. Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, of the estimated burden of the 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Collection; (3) ways to enhance the Viewing Comments and Documents Washington, DC 20590–0001. quality, utility, and clarity of To view comments, as well as (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail information subject to the Collection; documents mentioned in this Notice as address above, between 9 a.m. and and (4) ways to minimize the burden of being available in the docket, go to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except the Collection on respondents, http://www.regulations.gov, click on the Federal holidays. The telephone number including the use of automated ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then is 202–366–9329. collection techniques or other forms of become highlighted in blue. In the (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. To ensure information technology. In response to ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– your comments are received in a timely your comments, we may revise this ICR 0750’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk or decide not to seek approval of ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ Officer for the Coast Guard. revisions of the Collection. We will column. You may also visit the DMF in The DMF maintains the public docket consider all comments and material Room W12–140 on the ground floor of for this Notice. Comments and material received during the comment period. the DOT West Building, 1200 New received from the public, as well as We encourage you to respond to this Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC documents mentioned in this Notice as request by submitting comments and 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., being available in the docket, will related materials. Comments must Monday through Friday, except Federal become part of the docket and will be contain the OMB Control Number of the holidays. available for inspection or copying at ICR and the docket number of this room W12–140 on the West Building request, [USCG–2011–0750], and must Privacy Act Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, be received by October 21, 2011. We Anyone can search the electronic SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. will post all comments received, form of comments received in dockets and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, without change, to http:// by the name of the individual except Federal holidays. You may also www.regulations.gov. They will include submitting the comment (or signing the find the docket on the Internet at any personal information you provide. comment, if submitted on behalf of an http://www.regulations.gov. We have an agreement with DOT to use association, business, labor union, etc.). A copy of the ICR is available through their DMF. Please see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ You may review a Privacy Act statement the docket on the Internet at http:// paragraph below. regarding Coast Guard public dockets in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52339

the January 17, 2008, issue of the SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border mechanical, or other technological Federal Register (73 FR 3316). Protection (CBP) of the Department of techniques or other forms of Homeland Security will be submitting Information Collection Request information. the following information collection Title: Petition for Remission or Title: Shipping Articles. request to the Office of Management and Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties OMB Control Number: 1625–0006. Budget (OMB) for review and approval Incurred. Summary: Title 46 United States Code in accordance with the Paperwork §§ 10302 and 10502 and Title 46 Code Reduction Act: Petition for Remission or OMB Number: 1651–0100. of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14.201 Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Form Number: CBP Form 4609. require applicable owners, charterers, Incurred (Form 4609). This is a Abstract: CBP Form 4609, Petition for managing operators, masters, or proposed extension of an information Remission of Forfeitures and Penalties individuals in charge to make a collection that was previously shipping agreement in writing with each approved. CBP is proposing that this Incurred, is completed and filed with seaman before the seaman commences information collection be extended with the CBP Port Director by individuals employment. Additionally, 46 CFR no change to the burden hours. This who have been found to be in violation 14.313 requires shipping companies to document is published to obtain of one or more provisions of the Tariff submit Shipping Articles to the Coast comments from the public and affected Act of 1930, or other laws administered Guard: Three years after the article was agencies. This information collection by the CBP. Persons who violate the generated; upon going out of business or was previously published in the Federal Tariff Act are entitled to file a petition merger with another company; or upon Register (76 FR 34245) on June 13, 2011, seeking mitigation of any statutory request by the Coast Guard. Upon allowing for a 60-day comment period. penalty imposed or remission of a receipt and acceptance, Shipping This notice allows for an additional statutory forfeiture incurred. This Articles are transferred and archived at 30 days for public comments. This petition is submitted on CBP Form the Federal Records Center in Suitland, process is conducted in accordance with 4609. The information provided on this Maryland. 5 CFR 1320.10. form is used by CBP personnel as a basis Need: This collection provides DATES: Written comments should be for granting relief from forfeiture or verification, identification, location and received on or before September 21, penalty. CBP Form 4609 is authorized employment information of U.S. 2011 by 19 U.S.C. 1618 and provided for by merchant mariners: (1) To Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies for ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 19 CFR 171.11. It is accessible at invited to submit written comments on http://forms.cbp.gov/pdf/ use in criminal or civil law enforcement _ _ purposes, (2) to shipping companies, (3) this information collection to the Office CBP Form 4609.pdf. to labor unions, (4) to seaman’s of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Current Actions: CBP proposes to authorized representatives, (5) to Office of Management and Budget. extend the expiration date of this seaman’s next of kin, and (6) whenever Comments should be addressed to the information collection with no change the disclosure of such information OMB Desk Officer for Customs and to the burden hours or to the would be in the best interest of the Border Protection, Department of information being collected. seaman or his/her family. Homeland Security, and sent via Type of Review: Extension (without Forms: CG–705A. electronic mail to Respondents: Shipping companies. [email protected] or faxed change). Frequency: On occasion. to (202) 395–5806. Affected Public: Businesses, Burden Estimate: The estimated SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. Travelers. burden is 18,000 hours a year. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Estimated Number of Respondents: Dated: August 16, 2011. encourages the general public and 28,000. R.E. Day, affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on Estimated Total Annual Responses: Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 28,000. Commandant for Command, Control, proposed and/or continuing information Communications, Computers and collection requests pursuant to the Estimated Time per Respondent: Information Technology. Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104– 14 minutes. [FR Doc. 2011–21342 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 13). Your comments should address one Estimated Total Annual Burden BILLING CODE 9110–04–P of the following four points: Hours: 6,500. (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary If additional information is required DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND for the proper performance of the contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs SECURITY functions of the agency/component, and Border Protection, Regulations and including whether the information will Rulings, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection have practical utility; 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency Information Collection Washington, DC 20229–1177, at 202– agencies/components estimate of the 325–0265. Activities: Petition for Remission or burden of the proposed collection of Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties information, including the validity of Dated: August 17, 2011. Incurred the methodology and assumptions used; Tracey Denning, AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Protection, Department of Homeland clarity of the information to be Border Protection. Security collected; and [FR Doc. 2011–21409 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] (4) Minimize the burden of the ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for BILLING CODE 9111–14–P collections of information on those who comments; Extension of an existing are to respond, including the use of information collection. appropriate automated, electronic,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Supplemental Appropriations for public benefit. The following waiver URBAN DEVELOPMENT Recovery From and Response to (together with previously granted Terrorist Attacks on the United States waivers and alternative requirements) is [Docket No. FR–5554–N–01] Act, 2002 (Pub. L. 107–117, approved necessary to facilitate the use of these Additional Waiver Granted for the State January 10, 2002) (FY 2002 Department funds. HUD also agrees that it is of New York’s CDBG Disaster of Defense Appropriation); and by consistent with the overall purposes of Recovery Grants—The Drawing Center chapter 13 of title II of the 2002 the Housing and Community Supplemental Appropriations Act for Development Act of 1974 and the AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Further Recovery From and Response to Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Secretary for Community Planning and Terrorist Attacks on the United States Housing Act, as amended. Development, HUD. (Pub. L. 107–206, approved August 2, Applicable Rules, Statutes, Waivers, ACTION: Notice. 2002) (FY 2002 Recovery and Response to Terrorist Attacks Supplemental). and Alternative Requirements SUMMARY: This notice advises the public The third proviso of section 434 of the 1. Expiration of waivers and of an additional waiver applicable to the FY 2002 HUD Appropriations Act and alternative requirements. In Federal Community Development Block Grant the fourth proviso of the FY 2002 Register notices published on January (CDBG) disaster recovery grants Recovery and Response to Terrorist 28, 2002 (67 FR 4164), February 7, 2002 provided to the State of New York for Attacks Supplemental authorize the (67 FR 5845), March 18, 2002 (67 FR the purpose of assisting in the recovery Secretary to waive, or specify alternative 12042), May 22, 2002 (67 FR 36017), from the September 11, 2001, terrorist requirements for, any provision of any May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26640), and April attacks on New York City. As described statute or regulation that the Secretary 12, 2004 (69 FR 19211), the Department in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION administers in connection with the promulgated waivers and alternative section of this notice, HUD is authorized obligation by the Secretary or use by the requirements necessary to facilitate the by statute and regulations to waive recipient of these grant funds, except for use of $700 million in disaster recovery statutory and regulatory requirements requirements related to fair housing, funds awarded to New York’s Empire and specify alternative requirements for nondiscrimination, labor standards, and State Development Corporation and $2.0 this purpose upon the request of the the environment, upon a finding that billion and $783 million awarded to grantee. HUD previously published such waiver is required to facilitate the New York’s Lower Manhattan Federal Register notices applicable to use of such funds. Development Corporation. In these grants on January 28, 2002, Waiver Justification combination with today’s waiver, these February 7, 2002, March 18, 2002, May waivers and alternative requirements 22, 2002, May 16, 2003, and April 12, Upon a request from the State of New will be in effect until all CDBG disaster 2004. York, this notice waives 42 U.S.C. recovery funds have been expended and 5305(a)(2) to the extent necessary to DATES: Effective Date: August 29, 2011. the grants have been officially closed. allow for an additional eligible activity: 2. Applicability of State CDBG FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: retirement of short-term debt service for requirements. Except for those waivers Scott Davis, Director, Disaster Recovery costs incurred in the amount not to and alternative requirements published and Special Issues Division, Office of exceed $2,000,000, by The Drawing in prior notices and this notice, Block Grant Assistance, Department of Center, a Lower Manhattan-based statutory and regulatory provisions Housing and Urban Development, 451 nonprofit organization, for the governing the Community Development 7th Street, SW., Room 7286, expansion of its site at 35 Wooster Block Grant program for states, Washington, DC 20410, telephone Street, New York, NY 10013. With this including those at 24 CFR subpart I, number 202–708–3587. Persons with waiver, the short-term debt will not be shall apply to the use of these funds. hearing or speech impairments may forgiven, but will be fully retired. No 3. Retirement of short-term debt access this number via TTY by calling portion of this debt was incurred prior service. 42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(2) and the the Federal Information Relay Service at to the supplemental appropriation to the implementing regulation at 24 CFR 800–877–8339. Facsimile inquiries may State of New York under the 570.482(a) are waived to the extent be sent to Mr. Davis at 202–401–2044. Community Development Block Grant necessary to allow for an additional (Except for the ‘‘800’’ number, these Disaster Recovery Program. When the eligible activity: retirement of short-term telephone numbers are not toll-free.) space adjacent to The Drawing Center’s debt service for costs incurred by The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: existing facility recently became Drawing Center, for the expansion of its available, the organization purchased it Authority To Grant Waivers site at 35 Wooster Street, New York, NY with a short-term commercial loan. Due 10013. The three grants covered by this to the extraordinarily fast and Notice are governed by the fifth proviso competitive nature of the Lower Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under the 2001 Emergency Manhattan real estate market and the The Catalog of Federal Domestic Supplemental Appropriations Act for cost savings experienced with Assistance numbers for the disaster Recovery from and Response to expansion of the existing facility into an recovery grants under this notice are as Terrorist Attacks on the United States adjacent site rather than relocation or follows: 14.218; 14.228. (Pub. L. 107–38, approved September new construction at a new site, HUD has 18, 2001); by section 434 of title IV of considered this request and finds that Finding of No Significant Impact the Departments of Veterans Affairs and the retirement of the short-term debt A Finding of No Significant Impact Housing and Urban Development, and presents a cost savings versus the (FONSI) with respect to the Independent Agencies Appropriations alternative of expansion into a new environment has been made in Act, 2002 (Pub. L. 107–73, approved facility that is not adjacent to the accordance with HUD regulations at 24 November 26, 2001 (Fiscal Year (FY) existing facility. Further, the expanded CFR part 50, which implement section 2002 HUD Appropriations Act); by facility would provide space for 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental chapter 13 of division B of the educational and public programs and Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Department of Defense and Emergency expand gallery space which provides for FONSI is available for public inspection

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52341

between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the individuals. Individuals may request the Regulations Division, Office of Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue, access to their own records that are General Counsel, Department of NW., Mail Stop 116 SIB, Washington, maintained in a system of records in the Housing and Urban Development, Room DC 20240; or e-mailing comments to possession or under the control of DOI 10276, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, [email protected]. by complying with DOI Privacy Act DC 20410–0500. Due to security FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulations, 43 CFR part 2. measures at the HUD Headquarters Karen Burke, OS/NBC Privacy Act The Privacy Act requires each agency building, an advance appointment to Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. to publish in the Federal Register a review the docket file must be Department of the Interior, 1951 description denoting the type and scheduled by calling the Regulations Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop character of each system of records that Division at 202–708–3055 (this is not a 116 SIB, Washington, DC 20240. the agency maintains, the routine uses toll-free number). Hearing or speech- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: that are contained in each system in impaired individuals may access this order to make agency record keeping number through TTY by calling the toll- I. Background practices transparent, to notify free Federal Relay Service at 800–877– The Department of the Interior (DOI) individuals regarding the uses of their 8339. maintains the Debarment and records, and to assist individuals to Dated: July 29, 2011. Suspension Program system of records. more easily find such records within the Mercedes Ma´rquez, The primary purpose of this system of agency. Below is the description of the Assistant Secretary, Community Planning and records is to assist DOI in conducting DOI Debarment and Suspension Development. and documenting debarment and Program system of records. [FR Doc. 2011–21418 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] suspension proceedings to ensure that In a notice of proposed rulemaking, BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Federal procurements and Federal which is published separately in the discretionary assistance, loans, and Federal Register, DOI is proposing to benefits are awarded to presently exempt records maintained in this DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR responsible business entities, system from certain provisions of the organizations, and individuals. Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Office of the Secretary Additional purposes of the system are: 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5). to promote understanding of the case In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), Privacy Act of 1974, as amended; decision path and concerns addressed DOI has provided a report of this system Notice of a New System of Records by the debarring and suspending official of records to the Office of Management in reaching a decision; to promote the AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. and Budget and to Congress. submission of relevant arguments in ACTION: Notice of Creation of a New contested cases; to educate the public as III. Public Disclosure Privacy Act System of Records. to the kinds of mitigating factors and Before including your address, phone remedial measures that demonstrate SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of number, e-mail address, or other present responsibility; and to enhance the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, personal identifying information in your the Department of the Interior is issuing the transparency of decision making. The system will be effective as comment, you should be aware that a public notice of its intent to create the proposed at the end of the comment your entire comment, including your Office of the Secretary ‘‘Debarment and period (the comment period will end personal identifying information, may Suspension Program’’ system of records. forty (40) days after the publication of be made public at any time. While you The system contains information this notice in the Federal Register) can ask us in your comment to withhold including, but not limited to, names and unless comments are received which your personal identifying information addresses of business entities, would require a contrary determination. from public review, we cannot organizations and individuals covered DOI will publish a revised notice if guarantee that we will be able to do so. by the system of records, evidence and changes are made based upon a review Dated: August 11, 2011. information obtained in support of of the comments received. Karen Burke, Action Referral Memoranda and Case Closure Memoranda, action II. Privacy Act OS/NBC Privacy Act Officer. determinations, administrative The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, SYSTEM NAME: agreements, and monitoring reviews of embodies fair information principles in Debarment and Suspension Program, debarment or suspension administrative a statutory framework governing the DOI–11 agreements. This newly established means by which Federal Agencies system will be included in the collect, maintain, use, and disseminate SYSTEM LOCATION: Department of the Interior’s inventory of individuals’ personal information. The record systems. Privacy Act applies to information that Office of Acquisition and Property DATES: Comments must be received by is maintained in a ‘‘system of records.’’ Management, U.S. Department of the October 3, 2011. This new system will A ‘‘system of records’’ is a group of any Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Code be effective October 3, 2011. records under the control of an agency 2607–MIB,Washington, DC 20240. ADDRESSES: Any person interested in for which information is retrieved by Records may also be located in files commenting on this notice may do so the name of an individual or by some maintained by the Office of the by: submitting comments in writing to identifying number, symbol, or other Solicitor, Mail Code 6456–MIB, 1849 C the OS/NBC Privacy Act Officer, Office identifying particular assigned to the Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, and of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the individual. The Privacy Act defines an the Office of Inspector General, Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue, individual as a United States citizen or Recovery and Oversight Office, NW., Mail Stop 116 SIB, Washington, lawful permanent resident. As a matter Acquisition Integrity Unit, Department DC 20240; hand-delivering comments to of policy, DOI extends administrative of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail the OS/NBC Privacy Act Officer, Office Privacy Act protections to all Stop 4428–MIB, Washington, DC 20240.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE Federal contracts and Federal has agreed to represent that employee or SYSTEM: assistance, loans, and benefits, are pay for private representation of the Individuals who have been awarded only to presently responsible employee; suspended, proposed for debarment, or business entities, organizations, and (b) When: debarred from Federal procurement and individuals. Additional purposes of the (i) One of the following is a party to assistance programs, individuals who system are: to promote understanding of the proceeding or has an interest in the have been the subject of Department the case decision path; promote proceeding: inquiries to determine whether they understanding of the concerns (A) DOI or any component of DOI; should be debarred and/or suspended addressed by the debarring and (B) Any other Federal agency from Federal procurement and suspending official in reaching a appearing before the Office of Hearings nonprocurement programs, and other decision; promote the submission of and Appeals; individuals whose names appear in the relevant arguments in contested cases; (C) Any DOI employee acting in his or files such as witnesses and educate the public and private bar as to her official capacity; investigators. the kinds of mitigating factors and (D) Any DOI employee acting in his remedial measures that demonstrate or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: present responsibility; and enhance the has agreed to represent that employee or Records include information on transparency of decision making. pay for private representation of the business entities, organizations and The system includes case files and employee; individuals excluded or considered for computer generated records developed (E) The United States, when DOJ exclusion from Federal procurement in connection with initiating and determines that DOI is likely to be and nonprocurement programs as a conducting suspension and debarment affected by the proceeding; and result of suspension or debarment proceedings under Federal Acquisition (ii) DOI deems the disclosure to be: proceedings initiated by DOI. Such Regulation (FAR) 48 CFR subpart 9.4, (A) Relevant and necessary to the information includes, but is not limited and part 1409 (procurement) and 2 CFR proceeding; and to, names and addresses of business parts 180 and 1400 (nonprocurement), (B) Compatible with the purpose for entities, organizations, and individuals, and in rendering interim and final which the records were compiled. (2) To a congressional office in evidence obtained in support of Action decisions in such proceedings. Case response to a written inquiry that an Referral Memoranda and Case Closure files are comprised of: (1) The official individual covered by the system, or the Memoranda, action notices and administrative record maintained by the heir of such individual if the covered determinations, tape recordings of oral DOI Office of Acquisition and Property individual is deceased, has made to the presentations of matters in opposition in Management (PAM); (2) files compiled office. contested actions, administrative by the case representative(s) in the (3) To any criminal, civil, or agreements entered into resolving Acquisition Integrity Unit of the DOI regulatory law enforcement authority debarment or suspension actions, and Office of the Inspector General, (whether Federal, state, territorial, local, monitoring reviews of debarment or Recovery and Oversight Office, the DOI Tribal or foreign) when a record, either suspension administrative agreements. Office of the Solicitor, or DOI Bureaus alone or in conjunction with other Examples of evidence contained in files in support of suspension and debarment information, indicates a violation or include correspondence, inspection actions; and (3) files developed by DOI potential violation of law—criminal, reports, interview reports, contracts, to provide documentation for civil, or regulatory in nature, and the assistance agreements, indictments, suspension and debarment actions and disclosure is compatible with the judgment and conviction orders, plea to conduct monitoring of administrative purpose for which the records were agreements, and other judicial action agreements entered to resolve related documents, and corporate compiled. debarment or suspension actions. (4) To an official of another Federal information. Records may include Computer generated records include documents containing individuals’ agency to provide information needed data regarding categories and status of in the performance of official duties names, Social Security Numbers and actions. This system of records contains dates of birth. Computer generated related to reconciling or reconstructing records retrievable by a case docketing data files or to enable that agency to records include data regarding system consisting of an assigned categories and status of cases. respond to an inquiry by the individual sequential case numerical identifier and to whom the record pertains, or when the name of the business entity, AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: coordinating on a debarment and organization, or individual subject to suspension action of mutual interest. Federal Property and Administrative suspension and/or debarment action. Services Act of 1949, 41 U.S.C. 251 et (5) To Federal, state, territorial, local, seq.; Office of Federal Procurement DISCLOSURES OUTSIDE DOI MAY BE MADE Tribal, or foreign agencies that have Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO requested information relevant or Executive Order 12549 (February 18, WHOM THE RECORD PERTAINS UNDER THE necessary to the hiring, firing or 1986); Executive Order 12689 (August ROUTINE USES LISTED BELOW: retention of an employee or contractor, 16, 1989); 48 CFR subpart 9.4; 48 CFR (1) (a) To any of the following entities or the issuance of a security clearance, 1409.4 et seq.; 2 CFR Part 180; and 2 or individuals, when the circumstances license, contract, grant or other benefit, CFR 1400.137 et seq. set forth in paragraph (b) are met: when the disclosure is compatible with (i) The U.S. Department of Justice the purpose for which the records were ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE (DOJ); compiled. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND (ii) A court or an adjudicative or other (6) To representatives of the National THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: administrative body; Archives and Records Administration to The primary purpose of the records in (iii) A party in litigation before a court conduct records management this system of records is to assist DOI in or an adjudicative or other inspections under the authority of 44 assembling information on, conducting, administrative body; or U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. and documenting, debarment and (iv) Any DOI employee acting in his (7) To state and local governments suspension proceedings to ensure that or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ and Tribal organizations to provide

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52343

information needed in response to court engaged to assist the Government in the Departmental Manual (DM) 1. Electronic order and/or discovery purposes related performance of a contract, grant, records disposition includes erasing and to litigation, when the disclosure is cooperative agreement, or other activity degaussing in accordance with DOI 384 compatible with the purpose for which related to this system of records and DM 1. the records were compiled. who need to have access to the records SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESSES: (8) To an expert, consultant, or in order to perform the activity. contractor (including employees of the (17) To representatives of other Director, Office of Acquisition and contractor) of DOI that performs services Federal debarring and suspending Property Management, U.S. Department requiring access to these records on agencies to promote understanding and of the Interior, Mail Code 2607–MIB, DOI’s behalf to carry out the purposes enhanced, consistent, analysis of 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC of the system. common issues and arguments, and 20240. (9) To appropriate agencies, entities, utilization of best practices for action NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: and persons when: documents. (a) It is suspected or confirmed that The Department of the Interior is (18) To publishers of computerized proposing to exempt portions of this the security or confidentiality of legal research systems, but such information in the system of records has system from the notification, access, and disclosures shall be limited to amendment procedures of the Privacy been compromised; and debarment and suspension action case (b) The Department has determined Act pursuant to sections (k)(2) and determinations and administrative (k)(5). DOI will make notification that as a result of the suspected or agreements. confirmed compromise there is a risk of determinations on a case by case basis. harm to economic or property interest, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR STORING, An individual requesting notification identity theft or fraud, or harm to the RETRIEVING, RETAINING AND DISPOSING OF of the existence of records on himself or security or integrity of this system or RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the System Manager other systems or programs (whether STORAGE: identified above. The request envelope maintained by the Department or Paper records are contained in file another agency or entity) that rely upon and letter should both be clearly marked folders stored in file cabinets; electronic ‘‘PRIVACY ACT INQUIRY.’’ A request the compromised information; and records are contained in removable (c) The disclosure is made to such for notification must meet the drives, computers, e-mail and electronic requirements of 43 CFR 2.60. agencies, entities and persons who are databases. reasonably necessary to assist in RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES: RETRIEVABILITY: connection with the Department’s The Department of the Interior is efforts to respond to the suspected or Records are retrieved by name and by proposing to exempt portions of this confirmed compromise and prevent, assigned sequential official case file system from the notification, access, and minimize, or remedy such harm. numbers. amendment procedures of the Privacy (10) To the Office of Management and SAFEGUARDS: Act pursuant to sections (k)(2) and Budget during the coordination and (k)(5). DOI will make access The records contained in this system clearance process in connection with determinations on a case by case basis. are safeguarded in accordance with legislative affairs as mandated by OMB An individual requesting records on applicable DOI security rules and Circular A–19. himself or herself should send a signed, policies. Records are accessible only by (11) To the Department of the written inquiry to the System Manager authorized DOI employees. Paper Treasury to recover debts owed to the identified above. The request should records are secured in file cabinets in United States. describe the records sought as (12) To the news media and the areas which are locked during non-duty specifically as possible. The request public, upon request, but such hours. The DOI server storing this envelope and letter should both be disclosures shall be limited to information is located in a secured DOI clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY ACT debarment and suspension action case facility. Access to data in computers is REQUEST FOR ACCESS.’’ A request for determinations and administrative password protected and restricted to access must meet the requirements of 43 agreements. suspension and debarment personnel CFR 2.63. (13) To a consumer reporting agency and other DOI employees with an if the disclosure requirements of the official need for such information. DOI CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES: Debt Collection Act, as outlined at 31 administers annual training on privacy, The Department of the Interior is U.S.C. 3711(e)(1), have been met. records management, data security and proposing to exempt portions of this (14) To the General Services protection. system from the notification, access, and Administration (GSA) to compile and amendment procedures of the Privacy RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: maintain the ‘‘Excluded Parties List Act pursuant to sections (k)(2) and System’’ in accordance with FAR 9.404 A debarment and suspension case (k)(5). DOI will make amendment and 2 CFR part 180, and Federal files records retention schedule has determinations on a case by case basis. Awardee Performance and Integrity been submitted to NARA for scheduling An individual requesting corrections Information System (FAPIIS). and is pending approval. The or the removal of material from his or (15) To business entities, disposition is temporary, and the her records should send a signed, organizations, or individuals retention will be cut off when the written request to the System Manager suspended, proposed for debarment, or debarment or voluntary exclusion identified above. A request for debarred in DOI proceedings and to the expires or all provisions of the corrections or removal must meet the legal, or otherwise designated, compliance agreement have been requirements of 43 CFR 2.71. representatives of such entities, completed. Destruction occurs 6 years organizations or individuals. and 3 months after cut-off. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: (16) To DOI and other Federal Paper record disposition methods Records in the system are obtained Department or agency contractors, include burning, pulping, shredding, from DOI and other Federal officials, grantees, or volunteers who have been etc. in accordance with DOI 384 state and local officials, private parties,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

businesses and other entities, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The and application; (2) seek public individuals who may have information proposed NOS for Sale 218 and a comments on our preliminary relevant to an inquiry, and individuals ‘‘Proposed Notice of Sale Package’’ determination that the HCP qualifies as who have been suspended, proposed for containing information essential to a low-effect plan and is therefore debarment or debarred, and their legal potential bidders may be obtained from eligible for a categorical exclusion under representatives. the Public Information Unit, Gulf of NEPA; and (3) advise other Federal and Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy State agencies, affected Tribes, and the SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS Management, Regulation and public of our intent to issue an ITP. OF THE ACT: Enforcement, 1201 Elmwood Park DATES: The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) The draft HCP and preliminary Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana EAS are being made available during a and (k)(5)) provides general exemption 70123–2394. Telephone: (504) 736– authority for some Privacy Act systems. 30-day public review period. To ensure 2519. For Sale 218, BOEMRE will be consideration, we must receive your In accordance with that authority, the issuing leases with a revised lease form Department of the Interior adopted written comments by September 21, which is scheduled to be approved 2011. regulations, 43 CFR 2.79(a–b). October 2011. The table identifying all Pursuant to exemptions 5 U.S.C. 552a ADDRESSES: Send comments by U.S. the changes between the previous lease (k)(2) and (k)(5) of the Privacy Act, mail to Sumalee Hoskin, U.S. Fish and form and the new lease form will be portions of this system of records are Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office, issued in October 2011 and can be exempt from the following subsections 6669 Short Lane, Gloucester, VA 23061; found at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/ of the Privacy Act (as found in 5 U.S.C. by fax at (804) 693–9032; or by homepg/lsesale/218/wgom218.html. 552a): subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), electronic mail at (e)(4)(G) through (e)(4)(I), and (f) of the Dated: August 4, 2011. [email protected]. In the subject Privacy Act. Michael R. Bromwich, line of your letter, fax, or electronic [FR Doc. 2011–21307 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy mail, include the document identifier BILLING CODE 4310–RF–P Management, Regulation and Enforcement. ‘‘Warren County Power Station HCP.’’ [FR Doc. 2011–21384 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P Sumalee Hoskin, Fish and Wildlife DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Biologist, Virginia Field Office (VAFO) (see ADDRESSES); telephone (804) 693– Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 6694; electronic mail: Regulation and Enforcement [email protected]. Fish and Wildlife Service Notice of Availability of the Proposed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We Notice of Sale (NOS) for Outer [FWS–R5–ES–2011–N164; 50120–1112– received a permit application from Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas 0000–F2] Dominion Virginia Power for incidental Lease Sale 218 in the Western Application for an Incidental Take take of the federally listed Madison Planning Area (WPA) in the Gulf of Permit for the Madison Cave Isopod Cave isopod over the next 9 years Mexico (GOM) From Dominion Virginia Power; Low- during construction of a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle power station AGENCY: Effect Habitat Conservation Plan Bureau of Ocean Energy in Warren County, Virginia. A Management, Regulation and AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, conservation program to minimize and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Department of Interior. mitigate for the incidental take would be the Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of application. implemented by Dominion Virginia ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Power as described in the proposed Proposed NOS for Proposed Sale 218. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Endangered Dominion Virginia Power LEHCP. Species Act (ESA) and the National SUMMARY: BOEMRE announces the We prepared a preliminary EAS to Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the comply with NEPA. The Service will availability of the proposed NOS for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service proposed Sale 218 in the WPA. This evaluate whether the proposed action or ‘‘we’’) announces the availability of and issuance of an ITP to Dominion Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR an application for an Incidental Take 256.29(c) as a matter of information to Virginia Power are adequate to support Permit (ITP) and a proposed Low-Effect a categorical exclusion. This notice is the public. With regard to oil and gas Habitat Conservation Plan (LEHCP) from leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the provided pursuant to section 10(c) of Dominion Virginia Power for public the ESA and NEPA regulations (40 CFR Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the review and comment. We received the OCS Lands Act, provides the affected 1506.6). permit application from Dominion We are requesting comments on the states the opportunity to review the Virginia Power for incidental take of the proposed HCP and our preliminary proposed Notice. The proposed Notice Madison Cave isopod during determination that the HCP qualifies as sets forth the proposed terms and construction of a new natural gas-fired low-effect under NEPA. conditions of the sale, including combined-cycle power station in minimum bids, royalty rates, and Warren County, Virginia, extending over Availability of Documents rentals. the next 9 years, until 2020. Our The proposed LEHCP and preliminary DATES: Comments on the size, timing, or preliminary determination is that the EAS are available on the VAFO’s Web location of proposed Sale 218 are due Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) site at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ from the affected states within 60 days qualifies as a low-effect plan under virginiafield/. Copies of the proposed following their receipt of the proposed NEPA. To make this determination, we LEHCP and preliminary EAS will be Notice. The final NOS will be published used our LEHCP Screening Form/ available for public review during in the Federal Register at least 30 days Environmental Action Statement (EAS), regular business hours at the VAFO (see prior to the date of bid opening. Bid which is also available for review. ADDRESSES). Those who do not have opening is currently scheduled for We provide this notice to (1) seek access to the Web site or cannot visit December 14, 2011. public comments on the proposed HCP our office can request copies by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52345

telephone at (804) 693–6694 or by letter pipelines are undergoing independent Public Comments to the VAFO (see ADDRESSES). analysis under the ESA, NEPA, and The Service invites the public to other environmental regulations. Background comment on the proposed HCP and Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 National Environmental Policy Act preliminary EAS during a 30-day public et seq.) and its implementing review period (see DATES). Comments We have made a preliminary can be submitted to VAFO (see regulations prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of determination that the Dominion animal species listed as endangered or ADDRESSES). All comments received, Virginia Power’s proposed LEHCP, including names and addresses, will threatened. Take is defined under the including the proposed avoidance, ESA as to ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, become part of the administrative record minimization, and mitigation measures, and may be made available to the shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or will have a minor or negligible effect on collect listed animal species, or to public. Before including your address, the species covered in the HCP, and that phone number, email address, or other attempt to engage in such conduct’’ (16 the HCP qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ HCP U.S.C. 1538). However, under section personal identifying information in your as described in the U.S. Fish and comment, you should be aware that 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue permits Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation to authorize incidental take of listed your entire comment—including your Planning Handbook (November 1996). personal identifying information—may species. ‘‘Incidental take’’ is defined by As further explained in our the ESA as take that is incidental to, and be made publicly available at any time. preliminary EAS, included for public While you may request at the top of not the purpose of, carrying out an review, we preliminarily determine that otherwise lawful activity. Regulations your document that we withhold your the HCP qualifies as a LEHCP based on personal identifying information from governing ITPs for threatened and the following three reasons: endangered species are found in the public review, we cannot guarantee that 1. Implementation of the HCP would Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR we will be able to do so. result in minor or negligible effects on 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32, respectively. Dated: August 10, 2011. Dominion Virginia Power is seeking a federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; Kenneth D. Elowe, permit for the incidental take of the Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region. federally listed threatened Madison 2. Implementation of the plan would Cave isopod during construction result in minor or negligible effects on [FR Doc. 2011–21425 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] activities and post-construction other environmental values or BILLING CODE 4310–55–P monitoring period extending for a total resources; and 3. Impacts of the plan, considered term of 9 years, until 2020. Permit DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR coverage does not include plant together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable operational activities, as these are not Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated to cause take of the Madison similarly situated projects, would not Cave isopod. Dominion Virginia Power result, over time, in cumulative effects [FWS–R8–FHC–2011–N168; 81331–1334– proposes to construct a natural gas-fired to environmental values or resources 8TWG–W4] combined-cycle power station that is that would be considered significant. Based on these reasons, the incidental Trinity Adaptive Management Working anticipated to be one of the most Group efficient power plants in the nation once take permit also, therefore, qualifies for operational. Incidental take of the a categorical exclusion under NEPA, as AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Madison Cave isopod may occur from provided by the Department of the Interior. Interior’s NEPA implementing disturbance of the subterranean karst, ACTION: Notice of meeting. which is habitat the species occupies, regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210 and during construction. Additional 46.215) and the Departmental Manual SUMMARY: The Trinity Adaptive information can be found in the (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 8). Management Working Group (TAMWG) proposed LEHCP and on our Web site. Based on our review of public affords stakeholders the opportunity to The LEHCP’s proposed conservation comments that we may receive in give policy, management, and technical strategy is designed to avoid, minimize, response to this notice, we may revise input concerning Trinity River and mitigate the impacts of covered this preliminary determination. (California) restoration efforts to the activities on the covered species. The Next Steps Trinity Management Council (TMC). biological goals and objectives are to The TMC interprets and recommends protect high-quality habitat for a known We will evaluate the draft HCP and policy, coordinates and reviews Madison Cave isopod population. preliminary LEHCP Screening Form/ management actions, and provides The Proposed Action consists of the EAS and comments we receive to organizational budget oversight. This issuance of an ITP and implementation determine whether the permit notice announces a TAMWG meeting, of the proposed LEHCP. Three application meets the requirements of which is open to the public. alternatives to the proposed action were section 10(a) of the ESA and qualifies as DATES: TAMWG will meet from 10 a.m. considered in the LEHCP: A no-project a ‘‘low-effect’’ HCP and for a categorical to 5 p.m. on Monday, September 12, alternative, alternative sites, and exclusion under NEPA. We will also 2011. alternative construction procedures. evaluate whether issuance of a section These three alternatives were deemed 10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply with ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at impracticable by Dominion Virginia section 7 of the ESA by conducting an the Trinity County Library, 351 Main Power because of logical, law intra-Service section 7 consultation. We Street, Weaverville, CA 96093. enforcement, and wildlife management will use the results of this consultation, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: reasons. in combination with the above findings, Meeting Information: Randy A. Brown, The plant will be fueled by natural in our final analysis to determine TAMWG Designated Federal Officer, gas delivered to the site through gas whether to issue an ITP. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 pipelines regulated by the Federal requirements are met, we will issue the Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; Energy Regulatory Commission. These ITP to the applicant. telephone: (707) 822–7201. Trinity River

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52346 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Restoration Program (TRRP) who use a telecommunications device DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Information: Robin Schrock, Executive for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Director, Trinity River Restoration Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– Bureau of Land Management Program, P.O. Box 1300, 1313 South 800–877–8339 to contact the above [LLOR936000–L14300000–ET0000; HAG– Main Street, Weaverville, CA 96093; individual during normal business 11–0194; WAOR–16905] telephone: (530) 623–1800; e-mail: hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a [email protected]. day, 7 days a week, to leave a message Public Land Order No. 7775; Extension SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under or question with the above individual. of Public Land Order No. 6870; section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory You will receive a reply during normal Washington Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this business hours. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, notice announces a meeting of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Interior. TAMWG. The meeting will include discussion of the following topics: Land Order 6839 used a metes and ACTION: Public Land Order. bounds land description for the • High flow event results, encumbered land. Public Land Order SUMMARY: This order extends the • Process and schedule for review of duration of the withdrawal created by Phase 1 channel rehabilitation 6839 as extended by Public Land Order No. 7760 corrected the land description Public Land Order No. 6870 for an projects, additional 20-year period. The • to align with the dependent resurvey of FY 2012 TRRP budget and program of extension is necessary to continue U.S. Survey No. 5253, Alaska, officially work, protection of the scientific and • filed July 14, 2010. This resurvey Roles and responsibilities of Program ecological research values at the established lots 13 and 16 of U.S. participants, Steamboat Mountain Research Natural • Hatchery study, Survey No. 5253, within T. 23 N. R. 18 • Area, which would otherwise expire on Watersheds work program, W., Umiat Meridian as the lands August 27, 2011. • Public outreach efforts, encumbered by the National Oceanic DATES: Effective Date: August 28, 2011. • TRRP science program, and Atmospheric Administration • Klamath River conditions and facility, and lots 14 and 15, of U.S. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: possible supplemental water release, Charles R. Roy, Bureau of Land • Survey No. 5253, within T. 23 N., R. 18 Executive Director’s report, W., Umiat Meridian as the land Management, Oregon/Washington State • Office, 503–808–6189, or Dianne TMC chair report, and encumbered by the United States • Designated Federal Officer topics. Torpin, United States Forest Service, Geological Survey facility. Further Pacific Northwest Region, 503–808– Completion of the agenda is dependent review revealed that an error had been 2422. Persons who use a on the amount of time each item takes. made in the statement of acreage in The meeting could end early if the telecommunications device for the deaf Public Land Order No. 7760. This notice agenda has been completed. (TDD) may call the Federal Information corrects that error. Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 Dated: August 16, 2011. Correction to reach the BLM contact during normal Randy A. Brown, business hours. The FIRS is available 24 Deputy Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Public Land Order No. 7760, hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a Wildlife Office, Arcata, CA. published in the Federal Register on message or question with the above [FR Doc. 2011–21333 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] April 1, 2011 (76 FR 18244), on page individual. You will receive a reply BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 18245, in the first column, Paragraph 1, during normal business hours. under the heading ‘‘Order,’’ which SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR currently reads: purpose for which the withdrawal was ‘‘The National Oceanic and first made requires this extension to Bureau of Land Management Atmospheric Administration facility continue protection of the scientific and encumbers 171 acres for the Barrow ecological research values at the [LLAK963000–L14300000–ET–P: F–81469, Steamboat Mountain Research Natural F–81490] Base Line Observatory. The United Area. The withdrawal extended by this States Geological Survey facility order will expire on August 27, 2031, Public Land Order No. 7760; Extension encumbers 45 acres for the Barrow unless as a result of a review conducted of Public Land Order No. 6839; Alaska; Magnetic Observatory.’’ is hereby Correction prior to the expiration date pursuant to corrected to read: ‘‘The National Section 204(f) of the Federal Land AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Oceanic and Atmospheric Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 Interior. Administration facility encumbers 115 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines ACTION: Correction. acres for the Barrow Base Line that the withdrawal shall be further Observatory. The United States extended. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Geological Survey facility encumbers Management published Public Land 101 acres for the Barrow Magnetic Order Order No. 7760 in the Federal Register Observatory.’’ By virtue of the authority vested in on April 1, 2011 (76 FR 18244), the Secretary of the Interior by Section Robert L. Lloyd, extending PLO No. 6839 for another 20- 204 of the Federal Land Policy and year period. Public Land Order No. 7760 Supervisor, Lands, Realty and Title Transfer Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. contains incorrect acreages for the Program, Division of Alaska Lands. 1714, it is ordered as follows: encumbered land. [FR Doc. 2011–21297 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Public Land Order No. 6870 (56 FR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 1410–JA–P 42541 (1991)), which withdrew Robert L. Lloyd, BLM Alaska State approximately 1,400 acres of National Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Forest System land from location and Anchorage, Alaska 99513–7504. Persons entry under the United States mining

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52347

laws (30 U.S.C. chapter 2), but not from Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the individuals during normal business leasing under the mineral leasing laws, Secretary determines that the hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a to protect the Steamboat Mountain withdrawal shall be further extended. day, 7 days a week, to leave a message Research Natural Area, is hereby or question with either of the above Order extended for an additional 20-year individuals. You will receive a reply period until August 27, 2031. By virtue of the authority vested in during normal business hours. the Secretary of the Interior by Section Authority: 43 CFR 2310.4. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Dated: August 11, 2011. purpose for which the withdrawal was Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. first made for requires this extension to Rhea S. Suh, 1714, it is ordered as follows: continue the protection of rare botanical Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management Public Land Order No. 6868 (56 FR specimens and the unique natural and Budget. 40263 (1991)), which withdrew environment located within the [FR Doc. 2011–21300 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] approximately 2,400 acres of National Babyfoot and Big Craggies Botanical BILLING CODE 3410–11–P Forest System land from location and Areas. The withdrawal extended by this entry under the United States mining order will expire on August 27, 2031, laws (30 U.S.C. chapter 2), but not from DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR unless as a result of a review conducted leasing under the mineral leasing laws, prior to the expiration date pursuant to to protect the Steamboat Creek Bureau of Land Management Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Tributaries Streamside Zone and Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 [LLOR936000–14300000–ET0000; HAG–11– Steamboat Creek Roadside and U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines 0195; OROR–16124] Streamside Zones, is hereby extended that the withdrawal shall be further for an additional 20-year period until extended. Public Land Order No. 7774; Extension August 13, 2031. of Public Land Order No. 6868; Oregon Authority: 43 CFR 2310.4. Order AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Dated: August 11, 2011. By virtue of the authority vested in Interior. Rhea S. Suh, the Secretary of the Interior by Section ACTION: 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Public Land Order. Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management and Budget. Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. SUMMARY: This order extends the 1714, it is ordered as follows: duration of the withdrawal created by [FR Doc. 2011–21301 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Public Land Order No. 6875 (56 FR Public Land Order No. 6868 for an BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 42539 (1991)), which withdrew additional 20-year period. The approximately 1,050 acres of National extension is necessary to continue DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Forest System lands from location and protection of the major anadromous fish entry under the United States mining spawning beds at the Steamboat Creek Bureau of Land Management laws (30 U.S.C. chapter 2), but not from Tributaries Streamside Zone and leasing under the mineral leasing laws, Steamboat Creek Roadside and [LLOR936000–14300000–ET0000; HAG–11– to protect the Babyfoot and Big Craggies Streamside Zones. 0193; OROR–1202] Botanical Areas, is hereby extended for DATES: Effective Date: August 14, 2011. Public Land Order No. 7776; Extension an additional 20-year period until FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of Public Land Order No. 6875; Oregon August 27, 2031. Charles R. Roy, Bureau of Land Authority: 43 CFR 2310.4. Management, Oregon/Washington State AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Office, 503–808–6189, or Dianne Interior. Dated: August 11, 2011. Torpin, United States Forest Service, ACTION: Public Land Order. Rhea S. Suh, Pacific Northwest Region, 503–808– Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management 2422. Persons who use a SUMMARY: This order extends the and Budget. telecommunications device for the deaf duration of the withdrawal created by [FR Doc. 2011–21299 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] (TDD) may call the Federal Information Public Land Order No. 6875 for an BILLING CODE 3410–11–P Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 additional 20-year period. The to reach the BLM contact during normal extension is necessary to continue business hours. The FIRS is available 24 protection of the rare botanical hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a specimens and the unique natural INTERNATIONAL TRADE message or question with the above environment located within the COMMISSION individual. You will receive a reply Babyfoot and Big Craggies Botanical during normal business hours. Areas, which would otherwise expire on Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: August 27, 2011. The the Public Interest purpose for which the withdrawal was DATES: Effective Date: August 28, 2011. first made requires this extension to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: U.S. International Trade continue protection of the major Charles R. Roy, Bureau of Land Commission. anadromous fish spawning beds at the Management, Oregon/Washington State ACTION: Notice. Steamboat Creek Tributaries Streamside Office, 503–808–6189, or Dianne Zone and Steamboat Creek Roadside Torpin, United States Forest Service, SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that and Streamside Zones. The withdrawal Pacific Northwest Region, 503–808– the U.S. International Trade extended by this order will expire on 2422. Persons who use a Commission has received a complaint August 13, 2031, unless as a result of a telecommunications device for the deaf entitled In Re Certain Electronic Devices review conducted prior to the expiration (TDD) may call the Federal Information with Communication Capabilities date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 Components Thereof, and Related Federal Land Policy and Management to contact either of the above Software, DN 2841; the Commission is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52348 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

soliciting comments on any public produced in the United States or are INTERNATIONAL TRADE interest issues raised by the complaint. otherwise available in the United States, COMMISSION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: with respect to the articles potentially James R. Holbein, Secretary to the subject to the orders; and [Inv. No. 337–TA–798] (iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Commission, U.S. International Trade Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Complainant’s licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to Products Containing Same; Corrected Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) Notice of Institution of Investigation; 205–2000. The public version of the replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order Institution of Investigation Pursuant to complaint can be accessed on the 19 U.S.C. 1337 Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) and a cease and desist order within a at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be commercially reasonable time. AGENCY: U.S. International Trade available for inspection during official Written submissions must be filed no Commission. later than by close of business, five business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) ACTION: Notice. in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. business days after the date of International Trade Commission, 500 E publication of this notice in the Federal SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Register. There will be further complaint was filed with the U.S. telephone (202) 205–2000. opportunities for comment on the International Trade Commission on July General information concerning the public interest after the issuance of any 15, 2011, under section 337 of the Tariff Commission may also be obtained by final initial determination in this Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. accessing its Internet server (http:// investigation. 1337, on behalf of Samsung LED Co., www.usitc.gov). The public record for Persons filing written submissions Ltd. of Korea and Samsung LED this investigation may be viewed on the must file the original document and 12 America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. The Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) true copies thereof on or before the complaint alleges violations of section at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing- deadlines stated above with the Office 337 based upon the importation into the impaired persons are advised that of the Secretary. Submissions should United States, the sale for importation, information on this matter can be refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. and the sale within the United States obtained by contacting the 2841’’) in a prominent place on the after importation of certain light- Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) cover page and/or the first page. The emitting diodes and products containing 205–1810. Commission’s rules authorize filing same by reason of infringement of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The submissions with the Secretary by certain claims of U.S. Patent No. Commission has received a complaint facsimile or electronic means only to the 6,551,848 (‘‘the ‘848 patent’’); U.S. filed on behalf of HTC Corp. on August extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Patent No. 7,268,372 (‘‘the ‘372 patent’’); 16, 2011. The complaint alleges rules (see Handbook for Electronic U.S. Patent No. 7,282,741 (‘‘the ‘741 violations of section 337 of the Tariff Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ _ _ patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,771,081 (‘‘the Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the secretary/fed reg notices/rules/ ‘081 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,893,443 importation into the United States, the documents/ _ _ _ (‘‘the ‘443 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. sale for importation, and the sale within handbook on electronic filing.pdf). 7,838,315 (‘‘the ‘315 patent’’); U.S. the United States after importation of Persons with questions regarding Patent No. 7,959,312 (‘‘the ‘312 patent’’); certain electronic devices with electronic filing should contact the and U.S. Patent No. 7,964,881 (‘‘the ‘881 communication capabilities components Secretary (202–205–2000). patent’’). The complaint further alleges thereof, and related software. The Any person desiring to submit a that an industry in the United States complaint names as respondent Apple, document to the Commission in exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of Inc. of CA. confidence must request confidential section 337. The complainant, proposed treatment. All such requests should be The complainants request that the respondents, other interested parties, directed to the Secretary to the Commission institute an investigation and members of the public are invited Commission and must include a full and, after the investigation, issue an to file comments, not to exceed five statement of the reasons why the exclusion order and a cease and desist pages in length, on any public interest Commission should grant such order. issues raised by the complaint. treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents ADDRESSES: Comments should address whether for which confidential treatment by the The complaint, except for issuance of an exclusion order and/or a Commission is properly sought will be any confidential information contained cease and desist order in this treated accordingly. All nonconfidential therein, is available for inspection investigation would negatively affect the written submissions will be available for during official business hours (8:45 a.m. public health and welfare in the United public inspection at the Office of the to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the States, competitive conditions in the Secretary. Secretary, U.S. International Trade United States economy, the production This action is taken under the Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room of like or directly competitive articles in authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone the United States, or United States of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), (202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired consumers. and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) individuals are advised that information In particular, the Commission is of the Commission’s Rules of Practice on this matter can be obtained by interested in comments that: and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, contacting the Commission’s TDD (i) Explain how the articles 210.50(a)(4)). terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will potentially subject to the orders are used By order of the Commission. in the United States; need special assistance in gaining access (ii) Identify any public health, safety, Issued: August 16, 2011. to the Commission should contact the or welfare concerns in the United States James R. Holbein, Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– relating to the potential orders; Secretary to the Commission. 2000. General information concerning (iii) Indicate the extent to which like [FR Doc. 2011–21304 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] the Commission may also be obtained or directly competitive articles are BILLING CODE 7020–02–P by accessing its Internet server at

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52349

http://www.usitc.gov. The public record U.S. International Trade Commission, Appellate Rules: 13, 14, 24, 28, and for this investigation may be viewed on shall designate the presiding 28.1, and Form 4; the Commission’s electronic docket Administrative Law Judge. Bankruptcy Rules: 1007, 3007, 5009, (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. The Office of Unfair Import 9006, 9013, and 9014, and Official FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Investigations will not participate as a Forms 6C, 7, 22A, and 22C. party in this investigation. Office of Dockets Services, U.S. Civil Rules: 37 and 45. International Trade Commission, Responses to the complaint and the telephone (202) 205–1802. notice of investigation must be Criminal Rules: 11, 12, and 34. submitted by the named respondents in Evidence Rule: 803. Authority: The authority for institution of accordance with section 210.13 of the this investigation is contained in section 337 The text of the proposed amendments of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and Commission’s Rules of Practice and and the accompanying committee notes in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to can be found on the United States of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a), Federal courts’ rulemaking Web site at (2011). such responses will be considered by http://www.uscourts.gov/ the Commission if received not later Scope of Investigation: Having RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/ than 20 days after the date of service by Overview.aspx. considered the complaint, the U.S. the Commission of the complaint and International Trade Commission, on the notice of investigation. Extensions of The Judicial Conference Committee August 12, 2011, ordered that— time for submitting responses to the on Rules of Practice and Procedure (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of complaint and the notice of submits these proposed amendments for section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as investigation will not be granted unless public comment. All written comments amended, an investigation be instituted good cause therefor is shown. and suggestions with respect to the to determine whether there is a Failure of a respondent to file a timely proposed amendments must be received violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of response to each allegation in the by the Secretary no later than February section 337 in the importation into the complaint and in this notice may be 15, 2012. They can be sent to any of the United States, the sale for importation, deemed to constitute a waiver of the following: by mail to Peter G. McCabe, or the sale within the United States after right to appear and contest the Secretary, Committee on Rules of importation of certain light-emitting allegations of the complaint and this Practice and Procedure of the Judicial diodes and products containing same notice, and to authorize the Conference of the United States, that infringe one or more of claims 1, 3, administrative law judge and the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary 5–10, and 13–16 of the ‘848 patent; Commission, without further notice to Building, Washington, DC 20544; by claims 1–9 of the ‘372 patent; claims 1 the respondent, to find the facts to be as electronic mail to and 5–9 of the ‘741 patent; claims 1, 2, alleged in the complaint and this notice ; or 4, 6–8, 10, and 11 of the ‘081 patent; and to enter an initial determination by facsimile to Peter G. McCabe at (202) claims 1, 4, 5, and 7–14 of the ‘443 and a final determination containing 502–1766. In accordance with patent; claims 1–4, 6, and 9–13 of the such findings, and may result in the established procedures, all comments ‘312 patent; claims 1–5 of the ‘315 issuance of an exclusion order or a cease submitted are available for public patent; and claims 1–12 of the ‘881 and desist order or both directed against inspection. patent, and whether an industry in the the respondent. Public hearings are scheduled to be United States exists as required by By order of the Commission. held on the amendments to: subsection (a)(2) of section 337; Issued: August 16, 2011. • Appellate Rules in Columbus, Ohio, (2) For the purpose of the on January 31, 2012, and in Washington, investigation so instituted, the following James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. DC, on February 3, 2012; are hereby named as parties upon which • this notice of investigation shall be [FR Doc. 2011–21308 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, served: BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DC, on January 13, 2012, and in (a) The complainants are: Chicago, Illinois, on February 10, 2012; Samsung LED Co., Ltd., 314, Maetan 3- • Civil Rules in Washington, DC, on Dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon City, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE November 7, 2011, in Phoenix, Arizona, Gyeonggi-Do 443–743, Korea. UNITED STATES on January 4, 2012, and in Chicago, Samsung LED America, Inc., 6 Illinois, on January 27, 2012; Hearings of the Judicial Conference Concourse Parkway NE., Atlanta, GA • Criminal Rules in Phoenix, Arizona, Advisory Committees on Rules of 30328. on January 6, 2012, and in Washington, Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and (b) The respondents are the following DC, on February 6, 2012; and Criminal Procedure and the Federal entities alleged to be in violation of • Rules of Evidence Evidence Rules in Phoenix, section 337, and are the parties upon Arizona, on January 7, 2012, and in which the complaint is to be served: AGENCY: Advisory Committees on Rules Washington, DC, on January 17, 2012. OSRAM GmbH, Hellabrunner Strasse 1, of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Those wishing to testify should 81543 Munich, Germany. Criminal Procedure, and the Federal contact the Committee Secretary at the OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH, Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference Leibnizstr 4, 93055 Regensburg, above address in writing at least 30 days of the United States. before the hearing. Germany. ACTION: Notice of Proposed OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc., Amendments and Open Hearings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1150 Kifer Road Suite 100, Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee Sunnyvale, CA 94086. SUMMARY: The Advisory Committees on on Rules of Practice and Procedure of OSRAM Sylvania Inc., 100 Endicott Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, the Judicial Conference of the United Street, Danvers, MA 01923. and Criminal Procedure, and Rules of States, Thurgood Marshall Federal (3) For the investigation so instituted, Evidence have proposed amendments to Judiciary Building, Washington, DC the Chief Administrative Law Judge, the following rules: 20544, Telephone (202) 502–1820.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52350 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Dated: August 16, 2011. examined on the following Department individuals wishing to obtain and Peter G. McCabe, of Justice Web site, to http:// provide comments on the draft Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ documents under consideration are and Procedure. Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the directed to the following Web site: [FR Doc. 2011–21332 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Consent Decree may also be obtained by http://www.justnet.org. BILLING CODE 2210–55–P mail from the Consent Decree Library, DATES: The comment period will be P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of open until September 21, 2011. Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Casandra Robinson, by telephone at Fleetwood ([email protected]), 202–305–2596 [Note: this is not a toll- Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone free telephone number], or by e-mail at Under the Comprehensive confirmation number (202) 514–1547. If [email protected]. Environmental Response, requesting a copy from the Consent Compensation and Liability Act Decree Library by mail, please enclose Thomas E. Feucht, a check in the amount of $168.25 (25 Executive Senior Science Advisor, National Notice is hereby given that on August cents per page reproduction cost) Institute of Justice. 15, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if [FR Doc. 2011–21347 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] United States and State of Montana v. requesting by e-mail or fax, forward a Soco West, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:11– BILLING CODE 4410–18–P check in that amount to the Consent cv–00088, was lodged with the United Decree Library at the address given States District Court for the District of above. Montana. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR In this settlement, Soco West, Inc. Robert Brook, Occupational Safety and Health (‘‘Soco’’) has agreed to perform the Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Administration remedial action at Operable Unit 2 of Section, Environment and Natural Resources the Lockwood Solvent Groundwater Division. [Docket No. OSHA–2011–0181] Plume Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’) in [FR Doc. 2011–21364 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Billings, Yellowstone County, Montana, BILLING CODE 4410–15–P Coke Oven Emissions Standard; as well as certain Site-wide remedial Extension of the Office of Management obligations. The Consent Decree also and Budget’s (OMB) Approval of requires Soco to pay $750,000 for past DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Information Collection (Paperwork) costs of removal and remedial action Requirements incurred by the United States in Office of Justice Programs AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health connection with the release or [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1564] Administration (OSHA), Labor. threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site, and the United Vehicular Digital Multimedia Evidence ACTION: Request for public comments. States and Montana’s future costs Recording System (VDMERS) SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public related to overseeing Soco’s remedial Standard, Certification Program comments concerning its proposal to action as well. The settlement resolves Requirements, and Selection and extend the Office of Management and the United States and Montana’s claims Application Guide Budget’s (OMB) approval of the against Soco under Section 107(a) of the information collection requirements Comprehensive Environmental AGENCY: National Institute of Justice, Justice. specified in the Standard on Coke Oven Response, Compensation and Liability Emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029). Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), and ACTION: Notice and Request for DATES: the United States’ claims under Section Comments. Comments must be submitted 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, and (postmarked, sent, or received) by SUMMARY: Section 7003 of the Resource In an effort to obtain October 21, 2011. Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 comments from interested parties, the ADDRESSES: U.S.C. 6973. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Electronically: You may submit The Department of Justice will receive Justice Programs, National Institute of comments and attachments for a period of thirty (30) days from the Justice (NIJ) will make available to the electronically at http:// date of this publication comments general public three draft documents www.regulations.gov, which is the relating to the Consent Decree. related to Vehicular Digital Multimedia Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the Comments should be addressed to the Evidence Recording Systems instructions online for submitting Assistant Attorney General, (VDMERSs) used by law enforcement comments. Environment and Natural Resources agencies: Facsimile: If your comments, Division, and either e-mailed to 1. Draft VDMERS Standard for Law including attachments, are not longer [email protected] or Enforcement. than 10 pages, you may fax them to the mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 2. Draft Law Enforcement VDMERS OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–1648. Department of Justice, Washington, DC Certification Program Requirements. Mail, hand delivery, express mail, 20044–7611, and should refer to United 3. Draft Law Enforcement VDMERS messenger, or courier service: When States and the State of Montana v. Soco Selection and Application Guide. using this method, you must submit a West, Inc., D.J. Ref. 90–11–2–08777. The opportunity to provide comments copy of your comments and attachments Commenters may request an on these documents is open to industry to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. opportunity for a public hearing in the technical representatives, law OSHA–2011–0181, U.S. Department of affected area, in accordance with enforcement agencies and organizations, Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Section 7003(d) of RCRA. research, development and scientific Administration, Room N–2625, 200 During the public comment period, communities, and all other stakeholders Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, the Consent Decree, may also be and interested parties. Those DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52351

mail, messenger, and courier service) regarding the causes and prevention of Estimated Total Burden Hours: are accepted during the Department of occupational injuries, illnesses, and 54,241. Labor’s and Docket Office’s normal accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act Estimated Cost (Operation and business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., also requires that OSHA obtain such Maintenance): $839,680. e.t. information with minimum burden IV. Public Participation—Submission of Instructions: All submissions must upon employers, especially those Comments on This Notice and Internet include the Agency name and OSHA operating small businesses, and to Access to Comments and Submissions docket number (OSHA–2011–0181) for reduce to the maximum extent feasible the Information Collection Request unnecessary duplication of efforts in You may submit comments in (ICR). All comments, including any obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657). response to this document as follows: personal information you provide, are The information collection (1) Electronically at http:// placed in the public docket without requirements in the Coke Oven www.regulations.gov, which is the change, and may be made available Emissions Standard provide protection Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by online at http://www.regulations.gov. for workers from the adverse health facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All For further information on submitting effects associated with exposure to coke comments, attachments, and other comments see the ‘‘Public oven emissions. In this regard, the Coke material must identify the Agency name Participation’’ heading in the section of Oven Emissions Standard requires and the OSHA docket number for the this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY employers to monitor workers’ exposure ICR (Docket No. OSHA–2011–0181). INFORMATION. to coke oven emissions, monitor worker You may supplement electronic Docket: To read or download health, and provide workers with submissions by uploading document comments or other material in the information about their exposures and files electronically. If you wish to mail docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov the health effects of exposure to coke additional materials in reference to an or the OSHA Docket Office at the oven emissions. electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket address above. All documents in the II. Special Issues for Comment docket (including this Federal Register Office (see the section of this notice OSHA has a particular interest in notice) are listed in the http:// titled ADDRESSES). The additional comments on the following issues: www.regulations.gov index; however, materials must clearly identify your • Whether the proposed information electronic comments by your name, some information (e.g., copyrighted collection requirements are necessary material) is not publicly available to date, and the docket number so the for the proper performance of the Agency can attach them to your read or download through the Web site. Agency’s functions, including whether All submissions, including copyrighted comments. the information is useful; Because of security procedures, the material, are available for inspection • The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of use of regular mail may cause a and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. the burden (time and costs) of the You may also contact Theda Kenney at significant delay in the receipt of information collection requirements, comments. For information about the address below to obtain a copy of including the validity of the the ICR. security procedures concerning the methodology and assumptions used; delivery of materials by hand, express FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: • The quality, utility, and clarity of delivery, messenger, or courier service, Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, the information collected; and please contact the OSHA Docket Office • Ways to minimize the burden on Directorate of Standards and Guidance, at (202) 693–2350, (TTY (877) 889– employers who must comply; for OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 5627). N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., example, by using automated or other Comments and submissions are Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) technological information collection posted without change at http:// 693–2222. and transmission techniques. www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: III. Proposed Actions cautions commenters about submitting I. Background OSHA is requesting an adjustment personal information such as social increase of 1,543 burden hours (from security numbers and date of birth. The Department of Labor, as part of its Although all submissions are listed in continuing effort to reduce paperwork 52,698 hours to 54,241). The adjustment is primarily the result of identifying the http://www.regulations.gov index, and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, some information (e.g., copyrighted conducts a preclearance consultation three additional coke oven batteries. The Agency will summarize the material) is not publicly available to program to provide the public with an read or download through this Web site. opportunity to comment on proposed comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in All submissions, including copyrighted and continuing information collection material, are available for inspection requirements in accordance with the the request to OMB. Type of Review: Extension of a and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 currently approved collection. Information on using the http:// (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program Title: Coke Oven Emissions Standard www.regulations.gov Web site to submit ensures that information is in the (29 CFR 1910.1029). comments and access the docket is desired format, reporting burden (time OMB Number: 1218–0128. available at the Web site’s ‘‘User Tips’’ and costs) is minimal, collection Affected Public: Business or other for- link. instruments are clearly understood, and profits. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for OSHA’s estimate of the information Number of Respondents: 20. information about materials not collection burden is accurate. The Frequency of Response: On occasion; available through the Web site and for Occupational Safety and Health Act of quarterly; annually. assistance in using the Internet to locate 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et Average Time per Response: Varies docket submissions. seq.) authorizes information collection from 5 minutes (.08 hour) to provide by employers as necessary or information to the examining physician V. Authority and Signature appropriate for enforcement of the OSH to 1 hour to conduct exposure David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Act or for developing information monitoring. Secretary of Labor for Occupational

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52352 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Safety and Health, directed the security deposit, a letter of credit, or Type of Review: Extension. preparation of this notice. The authority 501(c)(21) trust. Once a company’s Agency: Office of Workers’ for this notice is the Paperwork application to become self-insured is Compensation Programs. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 reviewed by the Division of Coal Mine Title: Agreement and Undertaking. et seq.) and Secretary of Labor’s Order Workers’ Compensation (DCMWC) and OMB Number: 1240–0039. No. 5–2010 (75 FR 55355). it is determined the company is Agency Number: OWCP–1. Signed at Washington, DC, on August 17, potentially eligible, an amount of Affected Public: Businesses or other 2011. security is determined to guarantee the for-profit. David Michaels, payment of benefits required by the Act. Total Respondents: 20. Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational The OWCP–1 form is executed by the Total Responses: 20. Safety and Health self-insurer who agrees to abide by the Time per Response: 15 minutes. [FR Doc. 2011–21373 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Department’s rules and authorizes the Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5. Secretary, in the event of default, to file BILLING CODE 4510–26–P Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): suit to secure payment from a bond $0. underwriter or in the case of a Federal Total Burden Cost (operating/ DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Reserve account, to sell the securities maintenance): $9. for the same purpose. A company Comments submitted in response to Office of Workers’ Compensation cannot be authorized to self-insure until this notice will be summarized and/or Programs this requirement is met. Regulations included in the request for Office of establishing this requirement are at 20 Management and Budget approval of the Proposed Renewal of Existing CFR 726.110 for Black Lung. This information collection request; they will Collection; Comment Request information collection is currently also become a matter of public record. approved for use through October 31, ACTION: Notice. 2011. Dated: August 17, 2011. Vincent Alvarez, SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as II. Review Focus: The Department of Labor is particularly interested in Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers’ part of its continuing effort to reduce Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of paperwork and respondent burden, comments which: * Evaluate whether the proposed Labor. conducts a preclearance consultation [FR Doc. 2011–21382 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] program to provide the general public collection of information is necessary and Federal agencies with an for the proper performance of the BILLING CODE 4510–CR–P opportunity to comment on proposed functions of the agency, including and/or continuing collections of whether the information will have information in accordance with the practical utility; LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION * Evaluate the accuracy of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 agency’s estimate of the burden of the (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice proposed collection of information, program helps to ensure that requested including the validity of the DATE AND TIME: data can be provided in the desired The Legal Services methodology and assumptions used; format, reporting burden (time and Corporation’s Board of Directors will * Enhance the quality, utility and meet telephonically on August 25, 2011. financial resources) is minimized, clarity of the information to be collection instruments are clearly The meeting will commence at 10:30 collected; and a.m., Eastern Standard Time, and will understood, and the impact of collection * Minimize the burden of the requirements on respondents can be continue until the conclusion of the collection of information on those who Board’s agenda. properly assessed. Currently, the Office are to respond, including through the of Workers’ Compensation Programs is LOCATION: F. William McCalpin use of appropriate automated, Conference Center, Legal Services soliciting comments concerning the electronic, mechanical, or other proposed collection: Agreement and Corporation, 3333 K Street, NW., technological collection techniques or Washington, DC 20007. Undertaking (OWCP–1). A copy of the other forms of information technology, proposed information collection request e.g., permitting electronic submissions PUBLIC OBSERVATION: Members of the can be obtained by contacting the office of responses. public who are unable to attend but listed below in the addresses section of III. Current Actions: The Department wish to listen to the public proceeding this Notice. of Labor seeks the approval of the may do so by following the telephone DATES: Written comments must be extension of this currently approved call-in directions provided below but submitted to the office listed in the information collection in order to are asked to keep their telephones addresses section below on or before determine if a coal mine company is muted to eliminate background noises. October 21, 2011. potentially eligible to become self- From time to time the Chairmana may ADDRESSES: Mr. Vincent Alvarez, U.S. insured. The information is reviewed to solicit comments from the public. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution insure that the correct amounts of CALL-IN DIRECTIONS FOR OPEN SESSIONS: Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington, negotiable securities are deposited or • Call toll-free number: 1–866–451– DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0372, indemnity bond is purchased and that 4981; fax (202) 693–2447, E-mail in a case of default OWCP has the • When prompted, enter the [email protected]. Please use authority to utilize the securities or following numeric pass code: only one method of transmission for bond. If this Agreement and 5907707348 comments (mail, fax, or E-mail). Undertaking were not required, OWCP • When connected to the call, please SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION would not be empowered to utilize the immediately ‘‘MUTE’’ your telephone. I. Background: Coal mine operators company’s security deposit to meet its STATUS OF MEETING: Open. desiring to be self-insurers are required financial responsibilities for the by law (30 U.S.C. 933 BL) to produce payment of black lung benefits in case Matters To Be Considered security by way of an indemnity bond, of default. 1. Approval of Agenda.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52353

2. Consider and act on the Finance Engineering (SCORE) Committee, an workshop on this topic will be held in Committee’s recommendation regarding interagency working group that Gaithersburg, MD on October 21, 2011. LSC’s FY 2013 appropriation request. coordinates cyber security research Assertion: ‘‘Current implementations 3. Public comment. activities in support of national security of cloud computing indicate a new 4. Consider and act on other business. systems, is seeking expert participants approach to security’’ 5. Consider and act on adjournment of in a day-long workshop on the pros and Implementations of cloud computing meeting. cons of the Security of Distributed Data have provided new ways of thinking CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Schemes. The workshop will be held about how to secure data and Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to October 21, 2011 in Gaithersburg, MD. computation. Cloud is a platform upon the Vice President & General Counsel, at Applications will be accepted until which we leverage various (202) 295–1500. Questions may be sent 5 p.m. EST September 21, 2011. opportunities to improve the way in which we think about and implement by electronic mail to Accepted participants will be notified the practices and technology needed to [email protected]. by October 1, 2011. secure the things that matter most to us. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACCESSIBILITY: LSC complies with the Current implementations of cloud Overview: This notice is issued by the American’s with Disabilities Act and computing security take advantage of National Coordination Office for the Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation the unique capabilities and Networking and Information Act. Upon request, meeting notices and architectures of cloud computing (e.g. Technology Research and Development materials will be made available in scale). alternative formats to accommodate (NITRD) Program on behalf of the Working from this assertion, we want individuals with disabilities. SCORE Committee. researchers and cloud implementers to Individuals who need other Background: There is a strong and submit, as part of your application to accommodations due to disability in often repeated call for research to participate in the October 21st order to attend the meeting in person or provide novel cyber security solutions. Assumption Buster Workshop, a one- telephonically should contact Katherine The rhetoric of this call is to elicit new page paper stating your opinion of the Ward, at (202) 295–1500 or solutions that are radically different assertion and outlining your key [email protected], at from existing solutions. Continuing thoughts on the topic. Below are some least 2 business days in advance of the research that achieves only incremental additional areas to explore stated meeting. If a request is made without improvements is a losing proposition. specifically in strong language advance notice, LSC will make every We are lagging behind and need supportive of the assertion. technological leaps to get, and keep, effort to accommodate the request but —Controls on provider side, controls on ahead of adversaries who are themselves cannot guarantee that all requests can be the subscribe-side, and controls of the rapidly improving attack technology. To fulfilled. shared space in cloud answer this call, we must examine the Dated: August 18, 2011. implementations can be defined in key assumptions that underlie current ways that allow for a comprehensive Victor M. Fortuno, security architectures. Challenging those view of the cloud security landscape Vice President & General Counsel. assumptions both opens up the [FR Doc. 2011–21551 Filed 8–19–11; 4:15 pm] to displayed and managed. possibilities for novel solutions and —A common security risk model can be BILLING CODE 7050–01–P provides an even stronger basis for leveraged when assessing cloud moving forward on those assumptions computing services and products, and that are well-founded. The SCORE use of this model provides a NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Committee is conducting a series of four consistent baseline for Cloud based workshops to begin the assumption Assumption Buster Workshop: technologies. buster process. The assumptions that —Cloud computing security is a natural ‘‘Current Implementations of Cloud underlie this series are as follows: Cyber fit when examined against the Federal Computing Indicate a New Approach to space is an adversarial domain; the cybersecurity research themes focused Security’’ adversary is tenacious, clever, and on designed-in-security, tailored capable; and re-examining cyber AGENCY: The National Coordination trustworthy spaces, moving target, security solutions in the context of these Office (NCO) for the Networking and and cyber economic incentives. These assumptions will result in key insights Information Technology Research and themes will be best demonstrated that will lead to the novel solutions we Development (NITRD) Program, using Cloud Computing. desperately need. To ensure that our National Science Foundation. —Opportunities exist to create existence discussion has the requisite adversarial proofs for specific security ACTION: Call for participation. flavor, we are inviting researchers who improvements such as minimal develop solutions of the type under kernels that can be formally verified FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: discussion, and researchers who exploit [email protected]. which could provide a stronger basis these solutions. The goal is to engage in for virtual machines. DATES: Workshop: October 21, 2011; robust debate of topics generally —We can establish a trust boundary Deadline: September 21, 2011. Apply believed to be true to determine to what remote-control that allows a cloud via e-mail to extent that claim is warranted. The customer to directly control system [email protected]. Travel adversarial nature of these debates is boundaries. expenses will be paid for selected meant to ensure the threat environment —Credible explications of security participants who live more than 50 is reflected in the discussion in order to priorities are possible thus enabling miles from Washington, DC, up to the elicit innovative research concepts that customers to obtain a complete limits established by Federal will have a greater chance of having a picture and insight into the security Government travel regulations and sustained positive impact on our cyber offered by their cloud restrictions. security posture. implementation. SUMMARY: The NCO, on behalf of the The fourth topic to be explored in this —Cloud customers are able to measure Special Cyber Operations Research and series is cloud computing. The the strength of the logical separation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52354 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

of their cloud data from the other Permit applications may be inspected by deployed every two to three years. Due customers. interested parties at the Permit Office, to the submarine terrain being volcanic, In this workshop, we will explore address below. ice scoured and highly variable in whether, or in what circumstances, this ADDRESSES: Comments should be makeup, trawls can be lost if the trawl confidence is warranted. addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, is snagged on boulders or rock Office of Polar Programs, National outcroppings. How To Apply Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson (3) Other gears: Towed or undulating If you would like to participate in this Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. instruments (e.g. Continuous plankton workshop, please submit (1) a resume or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. recorder, Winged Optical Particle curriculum vita of no more than two Polly A. Penhale at the above address or Counters, towed Current profilers) can pages which highlights your expertise in (703) 292–8030. be lost. In many cases these instruments, if lost are buoyant, and can this area and (2) a one-page paper SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NSF’s be recovered. In other cases, the stating your opinion of the assertion and Antarctic Waste Regulation, 45 CFR part instruments are heavy, and made of outlining your key thoughts on the 671, requires all U.S. citizens and mostly metal and sink in the rather deep topic. The workshop will accommodate entities to obtain a permit for the use or water surrounding the Antarctic no more than 60 participants, so these release of a designated pollutant in Continent. brief documents need to make a Antarctica, and for the release of waste compelling case for your participation. The permit applicant is: George in Antarctica. NSF has received a permit Watters, Director, US AMLR Program, Applications should be submitted application under this Regulation for electronically via e-mail to Southwest Fisheries Service, NOAA, operation of remote research field camp 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA [email protected] no later at ASPA #149 Cape Shirreff, Livingston than 5 p.m. EST on September 21, 2011. 92037 Permit application No. 2012 Island. The camp consists of four WM–001. Selection and Notification: The structures on the beach between Llano SCORE committee will select an expert Point and Sphinx Hill which has been Nadene G. Kennedy, group that reflects a broad range of in use during the summer since 1977. Permit Officer. opinions on the assertion. Accepted The camp is used to house researchers [FR Doc. 2011–21295 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] participants will be notified by e-mail (typically 6 people), provide a base of BILLING CODE 7555–01–P no later than October 1, 2011. We research operations, and allow cannot guarantee that we will contact laboratory studies. Biological individuals who are not selected, investigation of seabirds and pinnipeds NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION though we will attempt to do so unless is the primary research conducted from the volume of responses is the camp. Notice of Permit Applications Received overwhelming. Designated pollutants would be Under the Antarctic Conservation Act Dated: August 17, 2011. associated with camp operations of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541) [typically air emissions and waste water Suzanne H. Plimpton, AGENCY: National Science Foundation. (urine, grey-water, and human solid Reports Clearance Officer, National Science ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Foundation. waste)] and scientific activities (typically research materials). All wastes Received under the Antarctic [FR Doc. 2011–21350 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] would be packaged and removed from Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law BILLING CODE 7555–01–P the site for proper disposal in Chile or 95–541. the U.S. under approved guidelines SUMMARY: The National Science NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION prior to the end of each season. Foundation (NSF) is required to publish In addition, the AMLR Program notice of permit applications received to Notice of Permit Application Received conducts 30–90 days of vessel conduct activities regulated under the Under the Antarctic Conservation Act operations in the Antarctic Peninsula Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. of 1978 region. The vessel follows a NSF has published regulations under standardized survey grid, and the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title AGENCY: National Science Foundation. depending on the focus any given year, 45 part 670 of the Code of Federal ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications additional smaller sections of the region Regulations. This is the required notice Received Under the Antarctic are surveyed. During annual surveys, of permit applications received. Conservation Act. the Program deploys drifters and DATES: Interested parties are invited to expendable bathythermographs (XBT’s) submit written data, comments, or SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that to collect hydrographic data. In addition views with respect to this permit the National Science Foundation (NSF) to drifters and XBT’s, the AMLR application by September 21, 2011. This has received a waste management Program also deploys and recovers a application may be inspected by permit application for operation of a variety of gear that are not intentionally interested parties at the Permit Office, field research camp located in ASPA released into the environment: address below. #149–Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island (1) Conductivity-Temperature-Depth by the Antarctic Marine Living profilers (CTD’s) are lowered to collect ADDRESSES: Comments should be Resources (AMLR) Program, Southwest water in attached PCV bottles. Due to addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA. storms or heavy waves the bottles can be Office of Polar Programs, National The application is submitted to NSF broken and release plastic into the Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson pursuant to regulations issued under the ocean. Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. (2) Fishing nets: (a) Plankton nets FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DATES: Interested parties are invited to come in a variety of configurations and Polly A. Penhale at the above address or submit written data, comments, or sizes. The Program has lost a net ad (703) 292–7420. views with respect to this permit frame once every 3–5 years. (B) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The application within September 21, 2011. Commercial bottom trawl nets are National Science Foundation, as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52355

directed by the Antarctic Conservation is being issued to incorporate all documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21, Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as comments received for draft report One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville amended by the Antarctic Science, NUREG–1946). Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. • Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, DATES: Please submit comments by NRC’s Agencywide Documents has developed regulations for the December 20, 2011. Comments received Access and Management System establishment of a permit system for after this date will be considered if it is (ADAMS): Publicly available documents various activities in Antarctica and practical to do so, but the NRC staff is created or received at the NRC are designation of certain animals and able to ensure consideration only for available online in the NRC Library at certain geographic areas a requiring comments received on or before this http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ special protection. The regulations date. adams.html. From this page, the public establish such a permit system to can gain entry into ADAMS, which ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID designate Antarctic Specially Protected provides text and image files of the NRC–2010–0278 in the subject line of Areas. NRC’s public documents. If you do not your comments. For additional The applications received are as have access to ADAMS or if there are instructions on submitting comments follows: problems in accessing the documents and instructions on accessing located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s Permit Application: 2012–006 documents related to this action, see PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, ‘‘Submitting Comments and Accessing 1. Applicant: Jeff Bowman, University 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to Information’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY of Washington, Box 357940, Seattle, WA [email protected]. The NUREG– INFORMATION section of this document. 98105–7940. 1482, Revision 2, ‘‘Guidelines for You may submit comments by any one Inservice Testing at Nuclear Power Activity for Which Permit Is Requested of the following methods: Plants, Draft Report for Comment,’’ and • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to Enter an Antarctic Specially Protected subtitled ‘‘Inservice Testing of Pumps http://www.regulations.gov and search Area. The applicant plans to enter the and Valves, and Inservice Examination for documents filed under Docket ID Antarctic Specially Protect Area at Cape and Testing of Dynamic Restraints NRC–2010–0278. Address questions Royds, Ross Island (ASPA 121) to (Snubbers) at Nuclear Power Plants’’ is about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, collect sea ice and seawater for available electronically under ADAMS telephone: 301–492–3668; e-mail: microbial analysis. Accession Number ML112231412. [email protected]. • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Location • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Public comments and supporting Chief, Rules, Announcements, and ASPA 121—Cape Royds, Ross island. materials related to this notice can be Directives Branch (RADB), Office of found at http://www.regulations.gov by Dates Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– searching on Docket ID NRC–2010– B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory August 27, 2011 to November 2, 2011. 0278. Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Nadene G. Kennedy, 0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs. • Fax comments to: RADB at 301– Gurjendra S. Bedi, Division of [FR Doc. 2011–21296 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 492–3446. Component Integrity, Office of Nuclear BILLING CODE 7555–01–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, Submitting Comments and Accessing DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415– NUCLEAR REGULATORY Information 1393, e-mail: [email protected]. COMMISSION Comments submitted in writing or in NUREG–1482, Revision 2, electronic form will be posted on the ‘‘Guidelines for Inservice Testing at [NRC–2010–0278] NRC Web site and on the Federal Nuclear Power Plants, Draft Report for NUREG–1482, Revision 2, ‘‘Guidelines rulemaking Web site, http:// Comment’’ provides updated for Inservice Testing at Nuclear Power www.regulations.gov. Because your information on applicable regulations Plants, Draft Report for Comment’’ comments will not be edited to remove for testing of pumps and valves, and any identifying or contact information, inservice examination and testing of AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory the NRC cautions you against including snubbers. The information in NUREG– Commission. any information in your submission that 1482, ‘‘Guidelines for Inservice Testing ACTION: Announcement of issuance for you do not want to be publicly at Nuclear Plants,’’ Revision 0, issued public comment, availability. disclosed. April 1995, and Revision 1, issued The NRC requests that any party January 2005, has described these topics SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory soliciting or aggregating comments in the past. Commission (NRC) has issued for public received from other persons for This NUREG report replaces Revision comment a document entitled: NUREG– submission to the NRC inform those 0 and Revision 1 of NUREG–1482, and 1482, Revision 2, ‘‘Guidelines for persons that the NRC will not edit their is applicable, unless stated otherwise, to Inservice Testing at Nuclear Power comments to remove any identifying or all editions and addenda of the Plants, Draft Report for Comment,’’ and contact information, and therefore, they American Society of Mechanical subtitled ‘‘Inservice Testing of Pumps should not include any information in Engineers (ASME) Code of Operation and Valves, and Inservice Examination their comments that they do not want and Maintenance of Nuclear Power and Testing of Dynamic Restraints publicly disclosed. Plants (OM Code), which Title 10 of the (Snubbers) at Nuclear Power Plants’’. You can access publicly available Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) (Note that this document was documents related to this document 50.55a(b) incorporates by reference (76 submitted previously for public using the following methods: FR 36232–36279), dated June 21, 2011. comments as draft NUREG–1946. Based • NRC’s Public Document Room Note that the draft NUREG–1482, on public comments, draft NUREG– (PDR): The public may examine and Revision 2, is a substantial re-write from 1482 is being updated as Revision 2 and have copied, for a fee, publicly available issuance of draft NUREG–1946 (ADAMS

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52356 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Accession Number: ML102100236). and an amendment to Renewed Facility of extended burnup on gap release This draft NUREG–1482, Revision 2, Operating License No. NPF–58 issued to fractions. All the aspects of the fuel- incorporates all the public comments Indiana Michigan Power Company (the cycle were considered during the study, received for draft NUREG–1946, because licensee), for operation of Donald C. from mining, milling, conversion, based on public comments, NUREG– Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (DCCNP–1), enrichment and fabrication through 1482, Revision 1, is revised and updated located in Berrien County, Michigan, in normal reactor operation, instead of issuing the new NUREG– accordance with Title 10 of the Code of transportation, waste management, and 1946. The NRC staff evaluation and Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, storage of spent fuel. resolution of public comments for draft § 50.90. In accordance with 10 CFR The amendment and exemption NUREG–1946, including Inservice 51.21, the NRC performed an would allow DCCNP–1 to use Testing Owner Group comments, are environmental assessment documenting Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel up to a burnup documented in ADAMS Accession its findings. The NRC concluded that limit of 62 GWD/MTU. The NRC staff Number: ML112092872. Most of the the proposed actions would have no has completed its evaluation of the draft NUREG–1946 included in the significant environmental impact. proposed actions and concludes that main text of draft NUREG–1482, such changes would not adversely affect Environmental Assessment Revision 2, Appendix A, to this plant safety, and would have no adverse NUREG–1482, Revision 2, contains Identification of the Proposed Actions effect on the probability of any accident. For the accidents that involve damage or guidance provided in Revision 1 to The proposed actions would issue an NUREG–1482 for pumps and valves that melting of the fuel in the reactor core, exemption from 10 CFR 50.46 regarding fuel rod integrity has been shown to be has been updated for the development fuel cladding material, and revise the of inservice testing programs at nuclear unaffected by extended burnup under Technical Specifications document, consideration; therefore, the probability power plants. Appendix B to this which is part of the Renewed Facility NUREG contains guidance related to of an accident will not be affected by Operating Licenses, to permit use of fuel burnup to 62 GWD/MTU. For the inservice examination and testing of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel to a peak road dynamic restraints (snubbers), which is accidents in which the reactor core average burnup limit of 62 gigawatt- remains intact, the increased burnup included for the first time in the draft days per metric ton uranium (GWD/ NUREG–1482, Revision 2. may slightly change the mix of fission MTU). products that could be released in the The guidelines and recommendations The proposed actions are in provided in this NUREG and its event of a serious accident, but because accordance with the licensee’s the radionuclides contributing most to Appendices A and B do not supersede application dated December 16, 2010. the regulatory requirements specified in the dose are short-lived, increased 10 CFR 50.55a. Further, this NUREG The Need for the Proposed Actions burnup would not have an effect on the consequences of a serious accident does not authorize the use of The proposed actions to issue an alternatives to, or grant relief from, the beyond the consequences of previously exemption to the fuel cladding evaluated accident scenarios. Thus, ASME Code requirements for inservice requirement of 10 CFR 50.46, and to testing of pumps and valves, or there will be no significant increase in amend the Technical Specifications to projected dose consequences of inservice examination and testing of TM permit use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel postulated accidents associated with dynamic restraints (snubbers), to a peak rod average burnup limit of 62 incorporated by reference in 10 CFR fuel burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, and GWD/MTU would allow for more doses will remain well below regulatory 50.55a. In addition, the NUREG effective fuel management. If the limits. discusses other inservice test program exemption and amendment are not Regulatory limits on radiological topics such as the NRC process for approved, the licensee will not be effluent releases are independent of review of the OM Code, conditions on provided the opportunity to use burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR the use of the OM Code, and Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel design with a part 20, 10 CFR 50.36a, and Appendix interpretations of the OM Code. peak rod average burnup as high as 62 I to 10 CFR part 50 ensure that routine Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day GWD/MTU; the licensee would thus releases of gaseous, liquid or solid of August 2011. lose fuel management flexibility. radiological effluents to unrestricted For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed areas is kept ‘‘As Low As is Reasonably Anthony C. McMurtray, Actions Achievable.’’ Therefore, the NRC staff Chief, Component Performance and Testing concludes that during routine Branch, Division of Component Integrity, In this environmental assessment operations, there would be no Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. regarding the impacts of the use of significant increase in the amount of TM [FR Doc. 2011–21357 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Optimized ZIRLO fuel with the gaseous radiological effluents released BILLING CODE 7590–01–P possible burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, into the environment as a result of the the Commission is relying on the results proposed actions, nor will there be a of the updated study conducted for the significant increase in the amount of NUCLEAR REGULATORY NRC by the Pacific Northwest National liquid radiological effluents or solid COMMISSION Laboratory (PNNL), entitled radiological effluents released into the ‘‘Environmental Effects of Extending environment. [NRC–2011–0188; Docket No. 50–315] Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU’’ The proposed actions will not change Indiana Michigan Power Company, (NUREG/CR–6703, PNNL–13257, normal plant operating conditions (i.e., Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; January 2001). Environmental impacts no changes are expected in the fuel Environmental Assessment and of high burnup fuel up to 75 GWD/MTU handling, operational, or storing Finding of No Significant Impact were evaluated in the study, but some processes). The fuel storage and aspects of the review were limited to handling, radioactive waste, and other The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory evaluating the impacts of the extended systems which may contain Commission (NRC or the Commission) burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU, because of radioactivity are designed to assure is considering issuance of an exemption the need for additional data on the effect adequate safety under normal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52357

conditions. There will be no significant (ADAMS) Accession No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day changes in radiation levels during these ML010310298). The details of the NRC of August, 2011. evolutions, and no significant increase staff’s Safety Evaluation will be issued For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. in the allowable individual or concurrently with the amendment. Peter S. Tam, cumulative occupational radiation Environmental Impacts of the Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing exposure is expected to occur. Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor TM Alternatives to the Proposed Actions The use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor with a burnup limit of 62 GWD/MTU As an alternative to the proposed Regulation. will not change the potential action, the NRC staff considered denial [FR Doc. 2011–21340 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] environmental impacts of incident-free of the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘no- BILLING CODE 7590–01–P transportation of spent nuclear fuel or action’’ alternative). Denial of the the accident risks associated with spent application would result in no change fuel transportation if the fuel is cooled in current environmental impacts. Thus, NUCLEAR REGULATORY for 5 years after being discharged from the environmental impacts of the COMMISSION the reactor. A PNNL report for the NRC proposed actions and the alternative (NUREG/CR–6703, January 2001) action are similar. [Docket No. 50–278; NRC–2011–0178] concluded that doses associated with Exelon Generation Company, LLC; incident-free transportation of spent fuel Alternative Use of Resources PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Peach Bottom with burnup to 75 GWD/MTU are The action does not involve the use of Atomic Power Station, Unit 3; Notice of bound by the doses given in 10 CFR any different resources than those Consideration of Issuance of 51.52, Table S–4 for all regions of the previously considered in the Final Amendment to Facility Operating country, based on the dose rates from Environmental Statement for Donald C. License, Proposed No Significant the shipping casks being maintained Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, or the Hazards Consideration Determination, within regulatory limits. Increased fuel Generic Environmental Impact and Opportunity for a Hearing and burnup will decrease the annual Statement for License Renewal of Order Imposing Procedures for discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool Nuclear Plants: Regarding Donald C. which will postpone the need to remove Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2— Document Access to Sensitive spent fuel from the pool. Final Report (NUREG–1437, Unclassified Non-Safeguards NUREG/CR–6703 determined that no Supplement 20), dated May 2005. Information increase in environmental effects of Agencies and Persons Consulted AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory spent fuel transportation accidents is Commission. expected as a result of increasing fuel In accordance with its stated policy, ACTION: Notice of license amendment burnup to 75 GWD/MTU. on July 14, 2011, the NRC staff Based on the nature of the consulted with the Michigan State request, opportunity to comment, amendment, the proposed actions do official regarding the environmental opportunity to request a hearing, and not result in changes to land use or impact of the proposed action. The State Commission order. water use, or result in changes to the officials had no comments. DATES: quality or quantity of non-radiological Submit comments by September effluents. No changes to the National Finding of No Significant Impact 21, 2011. A request for a hearing must Pollution Discharge Elimination System On the basis of the environmental be filed by October 21, 2011. Any permit are needed. No effects on the assessment, the NRC staff concludes potential party as defined in Title 10 of aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the that the proposed actions will not have the Code of Federal Regulations (10 vicinity or the plant, or to threatened, a significant effect on the quality of the CFR) 2.4 who believes access to endangered, or protected species under human environment. Accordingly, the Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards the Endangered Species Act, or impacts NRC staff determined not to prepare an Information and/or Safeguards to essential fish habitat covered by the environmental impact statement for the Information is necessary to respond to Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. proposed action. this notice must request document There are no impacts to the air or For further details with respect to the access by September 1, 2011. ambient air quality. There are no proposed actions, see the licensee’s ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID impacts to historic and cultural letter dated October 29, 2009 (ADAMS NRC–2011–0178 in the subject line of resources. There would be no noticeable Accession No. ML093140092). your comments. Comments submitted in effect on socioeconomic conditions in Documents may be examined, and/or writing or in electronic form will be the region. Therefore, no changes or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public posted on the NRC Web site and on the different types of non-radiological Document Room (PDR), located at One Federal rulemaking Web site, http:// environmental impacts are expected as White Flint North, Public File Area O1 www.regulations.gov. Because your a result of the proposed actions. F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), comments will not be edited to remove Accordingly, the NRC concludes that Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available any identifying or contact information, there are no significant environmental records will be accessible electronically the NRC cautions you against including impacts associated with the proposed from the ADAMS Public Electronic any information in your submission that actions. Reading Room on the Internet at the you do not want to be publicly For more detailed information NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ disclosed. regarding the environmental impacts of reading-rm/adams.html. The NRC requests that any party extended fuel burnup, please refer to the Persons who do not have access to soliciting or aggregating comments study conducted by PNNL for the NRC, ADAMS or who encounter problems in received from other persons for entitled ‘‘Environmental Effects of accessing the documents located in submission to the NRC inform those Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/ ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR persons that the NRC will not edit their MTU’’ (NUREG/CR–6073, PNL–13257, Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– comments to remove any identifying or January 2001, Agencywide Documents 397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an contact information, and therefore, they Access and Management System e-mail to [email protected]. should not include any information in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52358 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

their comments that they do not want I. Introduction The MCPR safety limit is reevaluated for each reload using NRC-approved publicly disclosed. You may submit The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory comments by any one of the following methodologies. The analyses for Peach Commission (NRC or the Commission) Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit methods: is considering issuance of an • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 3, Cycle 19 have concluded that a two amendment to Facility Operating recirculation loop MCPR safety limit of http://www.regulations.gov and search License No. DPR–56, issued to Exelon ≥ 1.09, based on the application of Global for documents filed under Docket ID Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear Fuel’s NRC-approved MCPR safety NRC–2011–0178. Address questions Nuclear, LLC, (licensee) for operation of limit methodology, will ensure that this about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station acceptance criterion is met. For single telephone: 301–492–3668; e-mail: (PBAPS), Unit 3, located in York and recirculation loop operation, a MCPR safety [email protected]. limit of ≥ 1.12 also ensures that this • Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, The proposed amendment would acceptance criterion is met. The MCPR Chief, Rules, Announcements, and operating limits are presented and controlled revise the PBAPS, Unit 3, Technical in accordance with the PBAPS, Unit 3 Core Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Specification Section 2.1.1 to revise Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– Operating Limits Report (COLR). Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power The requested TS changes do not involve B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ratio (SLMCPR) values. The SLMCPR is any plant modifications or operational Commission, Washington, DC 20555– established to assure that at least 99.9% changes that could affect system reliability or 0001. performance or that could affect the • of the fuel rods in the core do not Fax comments to: RADB at 301– experience boiling transition during probability of operator error. The requested 492–3446. normal operation and abnormal changes do not affect any postulated accident You can access publicly available operating transients. The amendment precursors, do not affect any accident documents related to this document application is dated June 8, 2011 mitigating systems, and do not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms. using the following methods: (ADAMS Accession No. ML111600180). • NRC’s Public Document Room Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not Before issuance of the proposed involve a significant increase in the (PDR): The public may examine and license amendment, the Commission have copied, for a fee, publicly available probability or consequences of an accident will have made findings required by the previously evaluated. documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 2. Does the proposed amendment create One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville (the Act), and the Commission’s the possibility of a new or different kind of Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. regulations. accident from any accident previously • NRC’s Agencywide Documents The Commission has made a evaluated? Access and Management System proposed determination that the Response: No. (ADAMS): Publicly available documents amendment request involves no The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, created or received at the NRC are significant hazards consideration. Under calculated to ensure that during normal available online in the NRC Library at the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR operation and during abnormal operational http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in Section 50.92, this means that operation the core do not experience transition boiling adams.html. From this page, the public of the facility in accordance with the can gain entry into ADAMS, which if the limit is not violated. The new proposed amendment would not (1) SLMCPRs are calculated using NRC- provides text and image files of the Involve a significant increase in the approved methodology discussed in NEDE– NRC’s public documents. If you do not probability or consequences of an 24011–P–A, ‘‘General Electric Standard have access to ADAMS or if there are accident previously evaluated; or (2) Application for Reactor Fuel,’’ Revision 18. problems in accessing the documents create the possibility of a new or The proposed changes do not involve any located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s different kind of accident from any new modes of operation, any changes to PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, accident previously evaluated; or (3) setpoints, or any plant modifications. The 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to involve a significant reduction in a proposed revised MCPR safety limits have [email protected]. The application been shown to be acceptable for Cycle 19 margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR operation. The core operating limits will for amendment, dated June 8, 2011, 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its contains proprietary information and, continue to be developed using NRC- analysis of the issue of no significant approved methods. The proposed MCPR accordingly, those portions are being hazards consideration, which is safety limits or methods for establishing the withheld from public disclosure. A presented below: core operating limits do not result in the redacted version of the application for 1. Does the proposed amendment involve creation of any new precursors to an amendment, dated June 8, 2011, is a significant increase in the probability or accident. available electronically under ADAMS consequences of an accident previously Therefore, this change does not create the Accession Number ML111600180. evaluated? possibility of a new or different kind of • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Response: No. accident from any previously evaluated. Public comments and supporting The derivation of the cycle specific Safety 3. Does the proposed amendment involve materials related to this notice can be Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios a significant reduction in a margin of safety? found at http://www.regulations.gov by (SLMCPRs) for incorporation into the Response: No. Technical Specifications (TS), and their use There is no significant reduction in the searching on Docket ID NRC–2011– margin of safety previously approved by the 0178. to determine cycle specific thermal limits, has been performed using the methodology NRC as a result of the proposed change to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John discussed in NEDE–2401 1–P–A, ‘‘General SLMCPRs. The new SLMCPRs are calculated D. Hughey, Project Manager, Plant Electric Standard Application for Reactor using methodology discussed in NEDE– Licensing Branch 1–2, Division of Fuel,’’ Revision 18. 24011–P–A, ‘‘General Electric Standard Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to Application for Reactor Fuel,’’ Revision 18. ensure that during normal operation and The SLMCPRs ensure that during normal Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. during abnormal operational transients, at operation and during abnormal operational Nuclear Regulatory Commission, least 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core do not transients, at least 99.9% of all fuel rods in Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: experience transition boiling if the limit is the core do not experience transition boiling 301–415–3204; fax number: 301–415– not violated. The new SLMCPRs preserve the if the limit is not violated, thereby preserving 2102; e-mail: [email protected]. existing margin to transition boiling. the fuel cladding integrity.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52359

Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not III. Petitions for Leave To Intervene each failure and the supporting reasons involve a significant reduction in the margin Any person whose interest may be for the requestor’s/petitioner’s belief. of safety previously approved by the NRC. affected by this proceeding and who Each contention must be one which, if wishes to participate as a party in the proven, would entitle the requestor/ The NRC staff has reviewed the petitioner to relief. licensee’s analysis and, based on this proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. As required by Those permitted to intervene become review, it appears that the three parties to the proceeding, subject to any standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with limitations in the order granting leave to satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff intervene, and have the opportunity to proposes to determine that the particularity the interest of the requestor/petitioner in the proceeding participate fully in the conduct of the amendment request involves no hearing with respect to resolution of and how that interest may be affected by significant hazards consideration. that person’s admitted contentions, the results of the proceeding. The including the opportunity to present The Commission is seeking public petition must provide the name, evidence and to submit a cross- comments on this proposed address, and telephone number of the examination plan for cross-examination determination. Any comments received requestor or petitioner and specifically of witnesses, consistent with NRC by September 21, 2011 will be explain the reasons why the regulations, policies, and procedures. considered in making any final intervention should be permitted with The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board determination. You may submit particular reference to the following (the Licensing Board) will set the time comments using any of the methods factors: (1) The nature of the requestor’s/ and place for any prehearing discussed under the ADDRESSES caption. petitioner’s right under the Act to be conferences and evidentiary hearings, Normally, the Commission will not made a party to the proceeding; (2) the and the appropriate notices will be issue the amendment until the nature and extent of the requestor’s/ provided. expiration of 60 days after the date of petitioner’s property, financial, or other Non-timely petitions for leave to publication of this notice. The interest in the proceeding; and (3) the intervene and contentions, amended Commission may issue the license possible effect of any decision or order petitions, and supplemental petitions amendment before expiration of the 60- which may be entered in the proceeding will not be entertained absent a day period provided that its final on the requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. determination by the Commission, the determination is that the amendment The petition must also identify the Licensing Board or a Presiding Officer involves no significant hazards specific contentions which the that the petition should be granted and/ consideration. In addition, the requestor/petitioner seeks to have or the contentions should be admitted Commission may issue the amendment litigated at the proceeding. based upon a balancing of the factors prior to the expiration of the 30-day A petition for leave to intervene must specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). comment period should circumstances also include a specification of the A State, county, municipality, change during the 30-day comment contentions that the petitioner seeks to Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or period such that failure to act in a have litigated in the hearing. For each agencies thereof, may submit a petition timely way would result, for example, contention, the requestor/petitioner to the Commission to participate as a in derating or shutdown of the facility. must provide a specific statement of the party under 10 CFR 2.309(d)(2). The Should the Commission take action issue of law or fact to be raised or petition should state the nature and controverted, as well as a brief prior to the expiration of either the extent of the petitioner’s interest in the explanation of the basis for the comment period or the notice period, it proceeding. The petition should be contention. Additionally, the requestor/ will publish in the Federal Register a submitted to the Commission by petitioner must demonstrate that the notice of issuance. Should the October 21, 2011. The petition must be issue raised by each contention is Commission make a final No Significant filed in accordance with the filing within the scope of the proceeding and Hazards Consideration Determination, instructions in section IV of this is material to the findings the NRC must any hearing will take place after document, and should meet the make to support the granting of a license issuance. The Commission expects that requirements for petitions for leave to amendment in response to the the need to take this action will occur intervene set forth in this section, application. The petition must include a very infrequently. except that State and Federally- concise statement of the alleged facts or recognized Indian Tribes do not need to II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing expert opinions which support the address the standing requirements in 10 position of the requestor/petitioner and CFR 2.309(d)(1) if the facility is located Requirements for hearing requests and on which the requestor/petitioner within its boundaries. The entities listed petitions for leave to intervene are intends to rely at hearing, together with above could also seek to participate in found in 10 CFR 2.309, ‘‘Hearing references to the specific sources and a hearing as a nonparty pursuant to 10 requests, petitions to intervene, documents on which the requestor/ CFR 2.315(c). requirements for standing, and petitioner intends to rely. Finally, the Any person who does not wish, or is contentions.’’ Interested persons should petition must provide sufficient not qualified, to become a party to this consult 10 CFR part 2, Section 2.309, information to show that a genuine proceeding may request permission to which is available at the NRC’s Public dispute exists with the applicant on a make a limited appearance pursuant to Document Room (PDR), located at O1 material issue of law or fact, including the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A F21, One White Flint North, 11555 references to specific portions of the person making a limited appearance Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 (or application for amendment that the may make an oral or written statement call the PDR at 800–397–4209 or 301– requestor/petitioner disputes and the of position on the issues, but may not 415–4737). NRC regulations are supporting reasons for each dispute, or, otherwise participate in the proceeding. accessible electronically from the NRC if the requestor/petitioner believes that A limited appearance may be made at Library on the NRC Web site at http:// the application for amendment fails to any session of the hearing or at any www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- contain information on a relevant matter prehearing conference, subject to such collections/cfr/. as required by law, the identification of limits and conditions as may be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52360 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

imposed by the Licensing Board. Secretary has not already established an petition to intervene is filed so that they Persons desiring to make a limited electronic docket. can obtain access to the document via appearance are requested to inform the Information about applying for a the E-Filing system. Secretary of the Commission by October digital ID certificate is available on the A person filing electronically using 21, 2011. NRC’s public Web site at http:// the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing If a hearing is requested, the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ system may seek assistance by Commission will make a final apply-certificates.html. System contacting the NRC Meta System Help determination on the issue of no requirements for accessing the E- Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link significant hazards consideration. The Submittal server are detailed in the located on the NRC Web site at http:// final determination will serve to decide NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- when the hearing is held. If the final Submission,’’ which is available on the submittals.html, by e-mail at determination is that the amendment agency’s public Web site at http:// [email protected], or by a toll- request involves no significant hazards www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- free call at 866–672–7640. The NRC consideration, the Commission may submittals.html. Participants may Meta System Help Desk is available issue the amendment and make it attempt to use other software not listed between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern immediately effective, notwithstanding on the Web site, but should note that the Time, Monday through Friday, the request for a hearing. Any hearing NRC’s E-Filing system does not support excluding government holidays. held would take place after issuance of unlisted software, and the NRC Meta Participants who believe that they the amendment. If the final System Help Desk will not be able to have a good cause for not submitting determination is that the amendment offer assistance in using unlisted documents electronically must file an request involves a significant hazards software. exemption request, in accordance with consideration, any hearing held would If a participant is electronically 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper take place before the issuance of any submitting a document to the NRC in filing requesting authorization to amendment. accordance with the E-Filing rule, the continue to submit documents in paper participant must file the document format. Such filings must be submitted IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) using the NRC’s online, Web-based by: (1) First-class mail addressed to the All documents filed in NRC submission form. In order to serve Office of the Secretary of the adjudicatory proceedings, including a documents through EIE, users will be Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory request for hearing, a petition for leave required to install a Web browser plug- Commission, Washington, DC 20555– to intervene, any motion or other in from the NRC Web site. Further 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and document filed in the proceeding prior information on the Web-based Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, to the submission of a request for submission form, including the express mail, or expedited delivery hearing or petition to intervene, and installation of the Web browser plug-in, service to the Office of the Secretary, documents filed by interested is available on the NRC’s public Web Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, governmental entities participating site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in submittals.html. Maryland, 20852, Attention: accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule Once a participant has obtained a Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E- digital ID certificate and a docket has Participants filing a document in this Filing process requires participants to been created, the participant can then manner are responsible for serving the submit and serve all adjudicatory submit a request for hearing or petition document on all other participants. documents over the Internet, or in some for leave to intervene. Submissions Filing is considered complete by first- cases to mail copies on electronic should be in Portable Document Format class mail as of the time of deposit in storage media. Participants may not (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance the mail, or by courier, express mail, or submit paper copies of their filings available on the NRC public Web site at expedited delivery service upon unless they seek an exemption in http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- depositing the document with the accordance with the procedures submittals.html. A filing is considered provider of the service. A presiding described below. complete at the time the documents are officer, having granted an exemption To comply with the procedural submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing request from using E-Filing, may require requirements of E-Filing, at least ten system. To be timely, an electronic a participant or party to use E-Filing if (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the filing must be submitted to the E-Filing the presiding officer subsequently participant should contact the Office of system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern determines that the reason for granting the Secretary by e-mail at Time on the due date. Upon receipt of the exemption from use of E-Filing no [email protected], or by telephone a transmission, the E-Filing system longer exists. at 301–415–1677, to request (1) A digital time-stamps the document and sends Documents submitted in adjudicatory ID certificate, which allows the the submitter an e-mail notice proceedings will appear in NRC’s participant (or its counsel or confirming receipt of the document. The electronic hearing docket which is representative) to digitally sign E-Filing system also distributes an e- available to the public at http:// documents and access the E-Submittal mail notice that provides access to the ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded server for any proceeding in which it is document to the NRC Office of the pursuant to an order of the Commission, participating; and (2) advise the General Counsel and any others who or the presiding officer. Participants are Secretary that the participant will be have advised the Office of the Secretary requested not to include personal submitting a request or petition for that they wish to participate in the privacy information, such as social hearing (even in instances in which the proceeding, so that the filer need not security numbers, home addresses, or participant, or its counsel or serve the documents on those home phone numbers in their filings, representative, already holds an NRC- participants separately. Therefore, unless an NRC regulation or other law issued digital ID certificate). Based upon applicants and other participants (or requires submission of such this information, the Secretary will their counsel or representative) must information. With respect to establish an electronic docket for the apply for and receive a digital ID copyrighted works, except for limited hearing in this proceeding if the certificate before a hearing request/ excerpts that serve the purpose of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52361

adjudicatory filings and would The request must include the following contentions (as established in the notice constitute a Fair Use application, information: of hearing or opportunity for hearing), participants are requested not to include (1) A description of the licensing the petitioner may file its SUNSI copyrighted materials in their action with a citation to this Federal contentions by that later deadline. submission. Register notice; G. Review of Denials of Access. Petitions for leave to intervene must (2) The name and address of the (1) If the request for access to SUNSI be filed no later than 60 days from potential party and a description of the is denied by the NRC staff either after August 22, 2011. Non-timely filings will potential party’s particularized interest a determination on standing and need not be entertained absent a that could be harmed by the action for access, or after a determination on determination by the presiding officer identified in C.(1); trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC that the petition or request should be (3) The identity of the individual or staff shall immediately notify the granted or the contentions should be entity requesting access to SUNSI and requestor in writing, briefly stating the admitted, based on a balancing of the the requestor’s basis for the need for the reason or reasons for the denial. factors specified in 10 CFR information in order to meaningfully (2) The requestor may challenge the 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). participate in this adjudicatory NRC staff’s adverse determination by Attorney for licensee: Mr. J. Bradley proceeding. In particular, the request filing a challenge within 5 days of Fewell, Associate General Counsel, must explain why publicly-available receipt of that determination with: (a) Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 versions of the information requested The presiding officer designated in this Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. would not be sufficient to provide the proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer basis and specificity for a proffered has been appointed, the Chief Order Imposing Procedures for Access contention; Administrative Judge, or if he or she is to Sensitive Unclassified Non- D. Based on an evaluation of the unavailable, another administrative Safeguards Information for Contention information submitted under paragraph judge, or an administrative law judge Preparation C.(3) the NRC staff will determine with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR A. This Order contains instructions within 10 days of receipt of the request 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has regarding how potential parties to this whether: been designated to rule on information proceeding may request access to (1) There is a reasonable basis to access issues, with that officer. documents containing Sensitive believe the petitioner is likely to H. Review of Grants of Access. A Unclassified Non-Safeguards establish standing to participate in this party other than the requestor may Information (SUNSI). NRC proceeding; and challenge an NRC staff determination B. Within 10 days after publication of (2) The requestor has established a granting access to SUNSI whose release this notice of hearing and opportunity to legitimate need for access to SUNSI. would harm that party’s interest petition for leave to intervene, any E. If the NRC staff determines that the independent of the proceeding. Such a potential party who believes access to requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) challenge must be filed with the Chief SUNSI is necessary to respond to this above, the NRC staff will notify the Administrative Judge within 5 days of notice may request such access. A requestor in writing that access to the notification by the NRC staff of its ‘‘potential party’’ is any person who SUNSI has been granted. The written grant of access. intends to participate as a party by notification will contain instructions on If challenges to the NRC staff demonstrating standing and filing an how the requestor may obtain copies of determinations are filed, these admissible contention under 10 CFR the requested documents, and any other procedures give way to the normal 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI conditions that may apply to access to process for litigating disputes submitted later than 10 days after those documents. These conditions may concerning access to information. The publication will not be considered include, but are not limited to, the availability of interlocutory review by absent a showing of good cause for the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement the Commission of orders ruling on late filing, addressing why the request or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting such NRC staff determinations (whether could not have been filed earlier. forth terms and conditions to prevent granting or denying access) is governed C. The requestor shall submit a letter the unauthorized or inadvertent by 10 CFR 2.311.3 requesting permission to access SUNSI disclosure of SUNSI by each individual I. The Commission expects that the to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. who will be granted access to SUNSI. NRC staff and presiding officers (and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, F. Filing of Contentions. Any any other reviewing officers) will Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: contentions in these proceedings that consider and resolve requests for access Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, are based upon the information received to SUNSI, and motions for protective and provide a copy to the Associate as a result of the request made for orders, in a timely fashion in order to General Counsel for Hearings, SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no minimize any unnecessary delays in Enforcement and Administration, Office later than 25 days after the requestor is identifying those petitioners who have of the General Counsel, Washington, DC granted access to that information. standing and who have propounded 20555–0001. The expedited delivery or However, if more than 25 days remain contentions meeting the specificity and courier mail address for both offices is: between the date the petitioner is basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, granted access to the information and Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, the deadline for filing all other the general target schedule for Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for processing and resolving requests under the Office of the Secretary and the the initial request to access SUNSI under these these procedures. Office of the General Counsel are procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph. 3 Requestors should note that the filing [email protected] and 2 1 Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non- requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR [email protected], respectively. Disclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief staff determinations (because they must be served 1 While a request for hearing or petition to Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not on a presiding officer or the Commission, as intervene in this proceeding must comply with the yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’ for the receipt of the written access request. submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52362 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

It is so ordered. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day Annette L. Vietti-Cook, of August 2011. Secretary of the Commission. Attachment 1—General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information in this Proceeding

Day Event/activity

0 ...... Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests. 10 ...... Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 60 ...... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 requestor/petitioner reply). 20 ...... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requestor of the staff’s determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 25 ...... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 30 ...... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 40 ...... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. A ...... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. A + 3 ...... Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. A + 28 ...... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. A + 53 ...... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. A + 60 ...... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. >A + 60 ...... Decision on contention admission.

[FR Doc. 2011–21346 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, whether the information will have BILLING CODE 7590–01–P (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) practical utility; as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the (Pub. L. 104–106), the Office of agency’s estimate of the burden of the OFFICE OF PERSONNEL Management and Budget (OMB) is proposed collection of information, MANAGEMENT soliciting comments for this collection. including the validity of the The information collection was methodology and assumptions used; Submission for Review: Revision of an previously published in the Federal 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and Existing Information Collection, Register on June 22, 2011 at Volume 76 clarity of the information to be USAJOBS FR No. 120 allowing for a 60-day public collected; and 4. Minimize the burden of the AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel comment period. No comments were Management. received for this information collection. collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the ACTION: The purpose of this notice is to allow an 30-Day Notice and request for use of appropriate automated, additional 30 days for public comments. comments. electronic, mechanical, or other OMB is particularly interested in technological collection techniques or SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel comments that: Management (OPM) offers the general other forms of information technology, public and other Federal agencies the 1. Evaluate whether the proposed e.g., permitting electronic submissions opportunity to comment on a revised collection of information is necessary of responses. information collection request (ICR) for the proper performance of the DATES: Comments are encouraged and 3206–0219, USAJOBS. As required by functions of the agency, including will be accepted until September 21,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:50 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52363

2011. This process is conducted in special hiring authorities. Information SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1. volunteered by applicants about their request an order to permit a registered ADDRESSES: Interested persons are potential eligibility under one or more closed-end investment company to invited to submit written comments on special hiring authorities will be stored make periodic distributions of long-term the proposed information collection to in USAJOBS and will only become capital gains with respect to its common the Office of Information and Regulatory visible to agencies that are considering stock as frequently as monthly in any Affairs, Office of Management and filling a job using a special hiring taxable year, and as frequently as Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., authority. In that case, the hiring agency distributions are specified by or in Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk will be able to search USAJOBS for accordance with the terms of any Officer for the Office of Personnel potential applicants who have chosen to outstanding preferred stock that such Management or sent via electronic mail indicate that they believe they are investment company may issue. to [email protected] or eligible to be selected under the special APPLICANTS: Tortoise Power and Energy faxed to (202) 395–6974. authority the agency seeks to use. Infrastructure Fund, Inc. (the Applicants who do not choose to use FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A ‘‘Company’’) and Tortoise Capital this opportunity to volunteer copy of this ICR, with applicable Advisors, L.L.C. (the ‘‘Investment information about their eligibility under supporting documentation, may be Adviser’’). obtained by contacting the Office of a special hiring authority may still Information and Regulatory Affairs, choose to apply for jobs, as they are FILING DATES: The application was filed Office of Management and Budget, 725 announced, under any of these special on January 25, 2011, and amended on 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC hiring authorities for which they are May 27, 2011, and August 15, 2011. eligible. If applicants volunteer to 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An provide information through the Web Office of Personnel Management or sent order granting the application will be site about the special hiring authorities via electronic mail to issued unless the Commission orders a for which they believe they are eligible, [email protected] or faxed hearing. Interested persons may request then agencies that are searching for to (202) 395–6974. a hearing by writing to the potential applicants to hire under one of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USAJOBS Commission’s Secretary and serving these authorities may be able to locate is the official Federal Government applicants with a copy of the request, their resume through USAJOBS and source for Federal jobs and employment personally or by mail. Hearing requests invite them to apply. Otherwise, this information. The Applicant Profile and should be received by the Commission information will be retained in the Resume Builder are two components of by 5:30 p.m. on September 9, 2011, and USAJOBS database and not disclosed. the USAJOBS application system. should be accompanied by proof of We estimate it will take USAJOBS reflects the minimal critical service on applicants, in the form of an approximately 38 minutes to initially elements collected across the Federal affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of complete the Resume Builder, Government to assess an applicant’s service. Hearing requests should state depending on the amount of qualifications for Federal jobs under the the nature of the writer’s interest, the information the applicant wishes to authority of sections 1104, 1302, 3301, reason for the request, and the issues include, and approximately five 3304, 3320, 3361, 3393, and 3394 of title contested. Persons who wish to be minutes to initially complete the 5, United States Code. This revision notified of a hearing may request Applicant Profile. We estimate over proposes to in part, permit the migration notification by writing to the 3,500,000 new USAJOBS accounts will of USAJOBS to a new platform. In Commission’s Secretary. be submitted annually. The total annual addition, this revision proposes to: ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and (A) Discontinue the use of the estimated burden is 2,508,333 hours. Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, Application for Federal Employment U.S. Office of Personnel Management. NE., Washington, 20549–1090; Optional Form 612. This action is being John Berry, Applicants, 11550 Ash Street, Suite 300, taken to facilitate a more seamless Director. Leawood, KS 66211. employment application process for [FR Doc. 2011–21398 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] both Federal agencies and job seekers, BILLING CODE 6325–38–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: consistent with the goals of Federal Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, hiring reform. at (202) 551–6879, or Mary Kay Frech, (B) Revise the collection of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 Demographic Information on Applicants COMMISSION (Division of Investment Management, by removing the sourcing question Office of Investment Company ‘‘How did you learn about this [Investment Company Act Release No. Regulation). position?’’ along with the pre-populated 29755; File No. 812–13862] answer choices provided for this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tortoise Power and Energy question. following is a summary of the (C) Add basic eligibility questions to Infrastructure Fund, Inc. and Tortoise application. The complete application the Applicant Profile as well as optional Capital Advisors, L.L.C.; Notice of may be obtained via the Commission’s questions to the Applicant Profile in Application website by searching for the file USAJOBS that will allow applicants to August 16, 2011. number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at http:// self-identify (subject to subsequent AGENCY: Securities and Exchange www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by verification by the appointing agency) as Commission (‘‘Commission’’). eligible for certain special hiring calling (202) 551–8090. ACTION: Notice of application under authorities. This is expected to section 6(c) of the Investment Company Applicants’ Representations streamline some hiring actions by Act of 1940 (‘‘Act’’) for an exemption allowing agencies to search for resumes 1. The Company is a closed-end from section 19(b) of the Act and rule of applicants who have volunteered management investment company 19b-1 under the Act. information about their eligibility under registered under the Act and organized

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:55 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52364 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

as a Maryland corporation.1 The Policy’’) and determined that such Applicants’ Legal Analysis Company’s investment objective is to Policy is consistent with the Company’s 1. Section 19(b) of the Act generally provide a high level of current income, investment objective(s) and in the best makes it unlawful for any registered with a secondary objective of capital interests of the Company’s common investment company to make long-term appreciation. The Company’s common stockholders. capital gains distributions more than stock is listed on the New York Stock 4. Applicants state that the purpose of once every twelve months. Rule 19b–1 Exchange. As of December 31, 2010, the the Distribution Policy is to permit the under the Act limits the number of Company had not issued any preferred Company to distribute over the course capital gains dividends, as defined in stock. Applicants believe that the of each year, through periodic section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code common stockholders of a Fund are distributions as nearly equal as (‘‘distributions’’), that a fund may make generally conservative, distribution practicable and any required special with respect to any one taxable year to sensitive investors who wish to have a distributions, an amount closely one, plus a supplemental ‘‘clean up’’ predictable and consistent distribution distribution made pursuant to section stream. approximating the total taxable income 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of 2. The Investment Adviser, a of the Company during such year and, Delaware limited liability company, is if so determined by its Board, all or a the total amount distributed for the year, registered under the Investment portion of the return of capital paid by plus one additional capital gain Advisers Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Advisers portfolio companies to the Company dividend made in whole or in part to Act’’). The Investment Adviser acts as during such year. Applicants note that avoid the excise tax under section 4982 investment adviser to the Company. under the Distribution Policy, the of the Code. Any Investment Adviser to a Fund will Company would distribute to its 2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that be registered under the Advisers Act. respective common stockholders a fixed the Commission may, by order upon 3. Applicants state that on June 22, monthly amount that may be adjusted application, conditionally or 2009, the board of directors (the from time to time. Applicants further unconditionally exempt any person, ‘‘Board’’) of the Company, including all state that the minimum annual security, or transaction, or any class or of the directors who are not ‘‘interested distribution rate would be independent classes of persons, securities or persons’’ of the Company as defined in of the Company’s performance during transactions, from any provision of the section 2(a)(19) of the Act (the any particular period, but would be Act, if and to the extent that the ‘‘Independent Directors’’), reviewed expected to correlate with the exemption is necessary or appropriate information regarding the purpose and Company’s performance over time. in the public interest and consistent terms of a proposed distribution policy, Applicants explain that except for with the protection of investors and the the likely effects of such policy on the extraordinary distributions and purposes fairly intended by the policy Company’s long-term total return (in potential increases or decreases in the and provisions of the Act. relation to market price and net asset final dividend periods in light of the 3. Applicants state that one of the value (‘‘NAV’’) per common share) and Company’s performance for the entire concerns underlying section 19(b) and the relationship between the Company’s calendar year and to enable the rule 19b–1 is that stockholders might be distribution rate on its common stock Company to comply with the unable to differentiate between frequent under the policy and the Company’s distribution requirements of subchapter distributions of capital gains and total return (in relation to NAV per M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 dividends from investment income. share). Applicants state that the (‘‘Code’’) for the calendar year, each Applicants state, however, that rule 19a–1 effectively addresses this concern Independent Directors also considered distribution on the common stock by requiring that a separate statement what conflicts of interest the Investment would be at the amount then in effect. Adviser and any affiliated persons of the showing the sources of a distribution Investment Adviser and the Company 5. Applicants state that the Board has (e.g., net investment income, net short- might have with respect to the adoption adopted policies and procedures under term capital gains, net long-term capital or implementation of such policy. rule 38a–1 under the Act that are gains and/or return of capital) Applicants further state that after reasonably designed to ensure that all accompany any distributions (or the considering such information, the notices required to be sent to Company confirmation of the reinvestment of Board, including the Independent stockholders pursuant to section 19(a) of distributions) estimated to be sourced in Directors, approved a distribution the Act, rule 19a–1 under the Act, and part from capital gains or capital. policy with respect to the Company’s condition 4 below (each a ‘‘19(a) Applicants also state that the same common stock (the ‘‘Distribution Notice’’) comply with condition 2.a. information is included in the below, and that all other written Company’s annual reports to 1 The Company is the only closed-end investment communications by the Company or its stockholders and similar information is company that currently intends to rely on the order. agents regarding distributions under the included on its IRS Form 1099–DIV, Applicants request that the order also apply to each Distribution Policy include the registered closed-end investment company that in which is sent to each common and any the future is advised by the Investment Adviser disclosure required by condition 3.a. preferred stockholder receiving (including any successor in interest) or by an entity below. Applicants state that the Board distributions during a particular year controlling, controlled by, or under common also has adopted policies and (including stockholders who have sold control (within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act) with the Investment Adviser (such investment procedures that require the Company to shares during the year). companies, together with the Company, the keep records that demonstrate its 4. Applicants further state that the ‘‘Funds’’). Any Fund that relies on the order in the compliance with all of the conditions of Company will make the additional future will comply with the terms and conditions the requested order and that are disclosures required by the conditions of the application and will satisfy each of the representations in the application, except that such necessary for the Company to form the set forth below, and has adopted representations will be made in respect of actions basis for, or demonstrate the calculation compliance policies and procedures in by the board of directors of such future Fund at a of, the amounts disclosed in its 19(a) accordance with rule 38a–1 under the future time. A successor in interest is limited to Notices. Any future Fund would adopt Act to ensure that all required 19(a) entities that result from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of similar policies and procedures before Notices and disclosures are sent to business organization. relying on the requested relief. stockholders. Applicants argue that by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52365

providing the information required by realize any net long-term capital gains although rule 19b–1 allows a fund some section 19(a) and rule 19a–1, and by until the point in the year that the fund flexibility with respect to the frequency complying with the procedures adopted can pay all of its remaining distributions of capital gains distributions, a fund under the Distribution Policy and the in accordance with rule 19b–1, and (b) might use all of the exceptions available conditions listed below, the Company’s not to realize any long-term capital under the rule for a tax year and still stockholders would be provided gains during any particular year in need to distribute additional capital sufficient information to understand excess of the amount of the aggregate gains allocated to the preferred stock to that their periodic distributions are not pay-out for the year (since as a practical comply with Revenue Ruling 89–81. tied to the Company’s net investment matter excess gains must be distributed 10. Applicants assert that the income (which for this purpose is the and accordingly would not be available potential abuses addressed by section Company’s taxable income other than to satisfy pay-out requirements in 19(b) and rule 19b–1 do not arise with from capital gains) and realized capital following years), notwithstanding that respect to preferred stock issued by a gains to date, and may not represent purely investment considerations might closed-end fund. Applicants assert that yield or investment return. Applicants favor realization of long-term gains at such distributions are fixed or also state that compliance with the different times or in different amounts. determined in periodic auctions by Company’s compliance procedures and Applicants thus assert that by limiting reference to short-term interest rates condition 3 set forth below will ensure the number of capital gain distributions rather than by reference to performance that prospective stockholders and third that a fund may make with respect to of the issuer, and Revenue Ruling 89– parties are provided with the same any one year, rule 19b–1 may prevent 81 determines the proportion of such information. Accordingly, applicants the efficient operation of a periodic distributions that are comprised of the assert that continuing to subject the distribution plan whenever that fund’s long-term capital gains. Company to section 19(b) and rule 19b– realized net long-term capital gains in 11. Applicants also submit that the 1 would afford stockholders no extra any year exceed the total of the periodic ‘‘selling the dividend’’ concern is not protection. distributions that may include such applicable to preferred stock, which 5. Applicants note that section 19(b) capital gains under the rule. entitles a holder to no more than a and rule 19b–1 also were intended to 8. Applicants also assert that rule periodic dividend at a fixed rate or the prevent certain improper sales practices, 19b–1 may cause fixed regular periodic rate determined by the market, and, like including, in particular, the practice of distributions under a periodic a debt security, is priced based upon its urging an investor to purchase shares of distribution plan to be funded with liquidation value, dividend rate, credit a fund on the basis of an upcoming returns of capital 2 (to the extent net quality, and frequency of payment. capital gains dividend (‘‘selling the investment income and realized short- Applicants state that investors buy dividend’’), where the dividend would term capital gains are insufficient to preferred shares for the purpose of result in an immediate corresponding fund the distribution), even though receiving payments at the frequency reduction in NAV and would be in realized net long-term capital gains bargained for, and do not expect the effect a taxable return of the investor’s otherwise could be available. To liquidation value of their shares to capital. Applicants submit that the distribute all of a fund’s long-term change. ‘‘selling the dividend’’ concern should capital gains within the limits in rule 12. Applicants request an order under not apply to closed-end investment 19b–1, the Company may be required to section 6(c) of the Act granting an companies, such as the Company, that make total distributions in excess of the exemption from section 19(b) of the Act do not continuously distribute shares. annual amount called for by its and rule 19b–1 under the Act to permit According to applicants, if the Distribution Policy, or to retain and pay the Company to distribute periodic underlying concern extends to taxes on the excess amount. Applicants capital gain dividends (as defined in secondary market purchases of stock of thus assert that the requested order section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code) as often closed-end funds that are subject to a would minimize these effects of rule as monthly in any one taxable year with large upcoming capital gains dividend, 19b–1 by enabling the Funds to realize respect to its common stock and as adoption of a periodic distribution plan long-term capital gains as often as frequently as distributions are specified actually helps minimize the concern by investment considerations dictate by or in accordance with the terms of avoiding, through periodic without fear of violating rule 19b–1. any outstanding preferred stock that the distributions, any buildup of large end- 9. Applicants state that Revenue Company may issue. of-the-year distributions. Ruling 89–81 under the Code requires Applicants’ Conditions 6. Applicants also note that common that a fund that has both common stock stock of a closed-end fund often trades and preferred stock outstanding Applicants agree that any order of the in the marketplace at a discount to the designate the types of income, e.g., Commission granting the requested fund’s NAV. Applicants believe that this investment income and capital gains, in relief will be subject to the following discount may be reduced if the fund is the same proportion as the total conditions: 1. Compliance Review and Reporting. permitted to pay relatively frequent distributions distributed to each class The Fund’s chief compliance officer dividends on its common stock at a for the tax year. To satisfy the will: (a) report to the Fund’s Board, no consistent rate, whether or not those proportionate designation requirements less frequently than once every three dividends contain an element of capital of Revenue Ruling 89–81, whenever a months or at the next regularly gain. fund has net realized long-term capital scheduled quarterly Board meeting, 7. Applicants assert that the gains with respect to a given tax year, whether (i) the Fund and its Investment application of rule 19b–1 to a the fund must designate the required Adviser have complied with the distribution policy actually could have proportionate share of such capital gains conditions of the order, and (ii) a an undesirable influence on portfolio to be included in common and preferred material compliance matter (as defined management decisions. Applicants state stock distributions. Applicants state that that, in the absence of an exemption in rule 38–1(e)(2) under the Act) has from rule 19b–1, the implementation of 2 Returns of capital as used in the application occurred with respect to such a periodic distribution plan imposes means return of capital for financial accounting conditions; and (b) review the adequacy pressure on management (a) not to purposes and not for tax accounting purposes. of the policies and procedures adopted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52366 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

by the Board no less frequently than portion of your distribution may be a 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure annually. return of capital. A return of capital may required by condition 2.a.ii. above, in 2. Disclosures to Fund Stockholders. occur, for example, when some or all of any written communication (other than a. Each 19(a) Notice disseminated to the money that you invested in the a communication on Form 1099) about the holders of the Fund’s common Fund is paid back to you. A return of the Distribution Policy or distributions stock, in addition to the information capital distribution does not necessarily under the Policy by the Fund, or agents required by section 19(a) and rule 19a– reflect the Fund’s investment that the Fund has authorized to make 1: performance and should not be such communication on the Fund’s i. Will provide, in a tabular or confused with ‘yield’ or ‘income’ ’’; 3 behalf, to any Fund stockholder, graphical format: and prospective stockholder or third-party (1) The amount of the distribution, on (3) ‘‘The amounts and sources of information provider; a per share basis, together with the distributions reported in this 19(a) b. The Fund will issue, amounts of such distribution amount, Notice are only estimates and are not contemporaneously with the issuance of on a per share basis and as a percentage being provided for tax reporting any 19(a) Notice, a press release of such distribution amount, from purposes. The actual amounts and containing the information in the 19(a) estimated: (A) Net investment income; sources of the amounts for tax reporting Notice and file with the Commission the (B) net realized short-term capital gains; purposes will depend upon the Fund’s information contained in such 19(a) (C) net realized long-term capital gains; investment experience during the Notice, including the disclosure and (D) return of capital or other capital remainder of its fiscal year and may be required by condition 2.a.ii. above, as an source; subject to changes based on tax exhibit to its next filed Form N–CSR; (2) The fiscal year-to-date cumulative regulations. The Fund will send you a c. The Fund will post prominently a amount of distributions, on a per share Form 1099–DIV for the calendar year statement on its (or the Investment basis, together with the amounts of such that will tell you how to report these Adviser’s) Web site containing the cumulative amount, on a per share basis distributions for Federal income tax information in each 19(a) Notice, and as a percentage of such cumulative purposes.’’ Such disclosure shall be including the disclosure required by amount of distributions, from estimated: made in a type size at least as large as condition 2.a.ii. above, and will (A) Net investment income; (B) net and as prominent as any other maintain such information on such Web realized short-term capital gains; (C) net information in the 19(a) Notice and site for at least 24 months. realized long-term capital gains; and (D) placed on the same page in close 4. Delivery of 19(a) Notices to return of capital or other capital source; proximity to the amount and the sources Beneficial Owners. If a broker, dealer, (3) The average annual total return in of the distribution. relation to the change in NAV for the 5- b. On the inside of the front cover of bank or other person (‘‘financial year period (or, if the Fund’s history of each report to stockholders under rule intermediary’’) holds common stock operations is less than five years, the 30e–1 under the Act, the Fund will: issued by the Fund in nominee name, or time period commencing immediately i. Describe the terms of the otherwise, on behalf of a beneficial following the Fund’s first public Distribution Policy (including the fixed owner, the Fund: (a) Will request that offering) ending on the last day of the amount or fixed percentage of the the financial intermediary, or its agent, month ended immediately prior to the distributions and the frequency of the forward the 19(a) Notice to all beneficial most recent distribution record date distributions); owners of the Fund’s shares held compared to the current fiscal period’s ii. Include the disclosure required by through such financial intermediary; (b) annualized distribution rate expressed condition 2.a.ii.(1) above; will provide, in a timely manner, to the as a percentage of NAV as of the last day iii. State, if applicable, that the financial intermediary, or its agent, of the month prior to the most recent Distribution Policy provides that the enough copies of the 19(a) Notice distribution record date; and Board may amend or terminate the assembled in the form and at the place (4) The cumulative total return in Distribution Policy at any time without that the financial intermediary, or its relation to the change in NAV from the prior notice to Fund stockholders; and agent, reasonably requests to facilitate last completed fiscal year to the last day iv. Describe any reasonably the financial intermediary’s sending of of the month prior to the most recent foreseeable circumstances that might the 19(a) Notice to each beneficial distribution record date compared to the cause the Fund to terminate the owner of the Fund’s shares; and (c) fiscal year-to-date cumulative Distribution Policy and any reasonably upon the request of any financial distribution rate expressed as a foreseeable consequences of such intermediary, or its agent, that receives percentage of NAV as of the last day of termination. copies of the 19(a) Notice, will pay the the month prior to the most recent c. Each report provided to financial intermediary, or its agent, the distribution record date. Such stockholders under rule 30e–1 under the reasonable expenses of sending the 19(a) disclosure shall be made in a type size Act and each prospectus filed with the Notice to such beneficial owners. at least as large as and as prominent as Commission on Form N–2 under the 5. Additional Board Determinations the estimate of the sources of the current Act, will provide the Fund’s total return for Funds Whose Common Stock Trades distribution; and in relation to changes in NAV in the at a Premium. ii. Will include the following financial highlights table and in any If: disclosure: discussion about the Fund’s total return. a. Each Fund’s common stock has (1) ‘‘You should not draw any 3. Disclosure to Stockholders, traded on the stock exchange that they conclusions about the Fund’s Prospective Stockholders and Third primarily trade on at the time in investment performance from the Parties. question at an average premium to NAV amount of this distribution or from the a. The Fund will include the equal to or greater than 10%, as terms of the Fund’s Distribution information contained in the relevant determined on the basis of the average of the discount or premium to NAV of Policy’’; 3 The disclosure in this condition 2(a)(ii)(2) will the Fund’s common stock as of the close (2) ‘‘The Fund estimates that it has be included only if the current distribution or the distributed more than its income and fiscal year-to-date cumulative distributions are of each trading day over a 12-week net realized capital gains; therefore, a estimated to include a return of capital. rolling period (each such 12-week

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52367

rolling period ending on the last trading a. A rights offering below NAV to SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE day of each week); and holders of the Fund’s common stock; COMMISSION b. The Fund’s annualized distribution b. An offering in connection with a [Investment Company Act Release No. rate for such 12-week rolling period, dividend reinvestment plan, merger, 29756; 812–13794] expressed as a percentage of NAV as of consolidation, acquisition, spin-off or the ending date of such 12-week rolling reorganization of the Fund; or Golub Capital BDC, Inc., et al.; Notice period, is greater than the Fund’s of Application average annual total return in relation to c. An offering other than an offering the change in NAV over the 2-year described in conditions 6.a. and 6.b. August 16, 2011. period ending on the last day of such above, provided that, with respect to AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 12-week rolling period; then: such other offering: Commission (‘‘Commission’’). i. At the earlier of the next regularly i. The Fund’s annualized distribution ACTION: Notice of an application for an scheduled meeting or within four rate for the six months ending on the order under section 6(c) of the months of the last day of such 12-week last day of the month ended Investment Company Act of 1940 (the rolling period, the Board, including a immediately prior to the most recent ‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from sections majority of the Independent Directors: distribution record date, expressed as a 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act. (1) Will request and evaluate, and the percentage of NAV per share as of such Applicants: Golub Capital BDC, Inc. Investment Adviser will furnish, such date,4 is no more than 1 percentage information as may be reasonably (the ‘‘Company’’), GC Advisors LLC (the point greater than the Fund’s average necessary to make an informed ‘‘Investment Adviser’’), GC SBIC IV–GP, annual total return for the 5-year period determination of whether the Inc. (the ‘‘GP Managing Member’’), GC ending on such date; 5 and Distribution Policy should be continued SBIC IV–GP, LLC (the ‘‘General or continued after amendment; ii. The transmittal letter Partner’’), and GC SBIC IV, L.P. (‘‘Golub (2) Will determine whether accompanying any registration SBIC’’). SUMMARY: continuation, or continuation after statement filed with the Commission in Summary of the Application: amendment, of the Distribution Policy is connection with such offering discloses The Company requests an order to consistent with the Fund’s investment that the Fund has received an order permit it to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement. objective(s) and policies and is in the under section 19(b) to permit it to make best interests of the Fund and its periodic distributions of long-term DATES: Filing Dates: The application was stockholders, after considering the capital gains with respect to its common filed July 9, 2010 and amended on information in condition 5.b.i.(1) above; stock as frequently as twelve times each November 12, 2010, March 31, 2011 and June 14, 2011. including, without limitation: year, and as frequently as distributions (A) Whether the Distribution Policy is Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An are specified by or determined in order granting the application will be accomplishing its purpose(s); accordance with the terms of any (B) The reasonably foreseeable issued unless the Commission orders a outstanding preferred stock as such hearing. Interested persons may request material effects of the Distribution Fund may issue. Policy on the Fund’s long-term total a hearing by writing to the return in relation to the market price 7. Amendments to Rule 19b–1. The Commission’s Secretary and serving and NAV of the Fund’s common stock; requested order will expire on the applicants with a copy of the request, and effective date of any amendment to rule personally or by mail. Hearing requests (C) The Fund’s current distribution 19b–1 that provides relief permitting should be received by the Commission rate, as described in condition 5.b. certain closed-end investment by 5:30 p.m. on September 12, 2011 and above, compared with the Fund’s companies to make periodic should be accompanied by proof of average annual taxable income or total distributions of long-term capital gains service on the Applicants, in the form return over the 2-year period, as with respect to their outstanding of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a described in condition 5.b., or such common stock as frequently as twelve certificate of service. Hearing requests longer period as the Board deems times each year. should state the nature of the writer’s interest, the reason for the request, and appropriate; and For the Commission, by the Division of (3) Based upon that determination, the issues contested. Persons who wish Investment Management, under delegated to be notified of a hearing may request will approve or disapprove the authority. continuation, or continuation after notification by writing to the Elizabeth M. Murphy, amendment, of the Distribution Policy; Commission’s Secretary. and Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities ii. The Board will record the [FR Doc. 2011–21323 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] and Exchange Commission, 100 F information considered by it, including BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549– its consideration of the factors listed in 1090. Applicants: David B. Golub, GC condition 5.b.i.(2) above, and the basis Advisors LLC, 150 South Wacker Drive, for its approval or disapproval of the Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60606. continuation, or continuation after FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: amendment, of the Distribution Policy Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at (202) in its meeting minutes, which must be 551–6873, or Dalia Osman Blass, Branch made and preserved for a period of not Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of less than six years from the date of such 4 If the Fund has been in operation fewer than six Investment Management, Office of months, the measured period will begin Investment Company Regulation). meeting, the first two years in an easily immediately following the Fund’s first public accessible place. offering. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 6. Public Offerings. The Fund will not 5 If the Fund has been in operation fewer than five following is a summary of the make a public offering of the Fund’s years, the measured period will begin immediately application. The complete application common stock other than: following the Fund’s first public offering. may be obtained via the Commission’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52368 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Web site by searching for the file Applicants state that companies benefit of that exemption to the number, or an applicant using the operating under the SBIA, such as the Company. Company name box, at http:// SBIC Subsidiary, will be subject to the Applicants’ Condition www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by SBA’s substantial regulation of calling (202) 551–8090. permissible leverage in their capital Applicants agree that any order structure. granting the requested relief will be Applicants’ Representations 2. Section 18(a) of the Act prohibits a subject to the following condition: 1. The Company, a Delaware registered closed-end investment The Company shall not issue or sell corporation, is an externally managed, company from issuing any class of any senior security, and the Company non-diversified, closed-end senior security or selling any such shall not cause or permit Golub SBIC or management investment company that security of which it is the issuer unless any other SBIC Subsidiary to issue or has elected to be regulated as a business the company complies with the asset sell any senior security of which the development company (‘‘BDC’’) under coverage requirements set forth in that Company, Golub SBIC or any other SBIC the Act.1 The Company seeks to section. Section 61(a) of the Act makes Subsidiary is the issuer except to the maximize the total return to its section 18 applicable to BDCs, with extent permitted by section 18 (as stockholders through both current certain modifications. Section 18(k) modified for BDCs by section 61) of the income and capital appreciation exempts an investment company Act; provided that, immediately after through debt and minority equity operating as an SBIC from the asset the issuance or sale by any of the investments. The Investment Adviser, a coverage requirements for senior Company, Golub SBIC or any other SBIC Delaware limited liability company, is securities representing indebtedness Subsidiary of any such senior security, that are contained in section 18(a)(1)(A) the investment adviser to the Company. the Company, individually and on a and (B). The Investment Adviser is registered consolidated basis, shall have the asset 3. Applicants state that the Company under the Investment Advisers Act of coverage required by section 18(a) of the 1940. may be required to comply with the asset coverage requirements of section Act (as modified by section 61(a)). In 2. Golub SBIC, a Delaware limited determining whether the Company has partnership, is a small business 18(a) (as modified by section 61(a)) on a consolidated basis because the the asset coverage on a consolidated investment company (‘‘SBIC’’) licensed basis required by section 18(a) of the by the Small Business Administration Company may be deemed to be an indirect issuer of any class of senior Act (as modified by section 61(a)), any (‘‘SBA’’) to operate under the Small security issued by Golub SBIC or senior securities representing Business Investment Act of 1958 another SBIC Subsidiary. Applicants indebtedness of Golub SBIC or another (‘‘SBIA’’). Golub SBIC is excluded from state that applying section 18(a) (as SBIC Subsidiary shall not be considered the definition of investment company modified by section 61(a)) on a senior securities and, for purposes of the by section 3(c)(7) of the Act. The consolidated basis generally would definition of ‘‘asset coverage’’ in section Company directly owns 99% of Golub require that the Company treat as its 18(h), shall be treated as indebtedness SBIC in the form of a limited partner own all assets and any liabilities held not represented by senior securities. interest. The General Partner owns 1% directly either by itself, by Golub SBIC, For the Commission, by the Division of of Golub SBIC in the form of a general or by another SBIC Subsidiary. Investment Management, pursuant to partner interest. The GP Managing Accordingly, the Company requests an delegated authority. Member, a Delaware corporation, is a order under section 6(c) of the Act Elizabeth M. Murphy, wholly-owned subsidiary of the exempting the Company from the Secretary. Company and serves as the managing provisions of section 18(a) (as modified member of the General Partner. The GP [FR Doc. 2011–21322 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] by section 61(a)), such that senior Managing Member and the Company are BILLING CODE 8011–01–P securities issued by each SBIC the sole members of the General Partner. Subsidiary that would be excluded from Applicants’ Legal Analysis the SBIC Subsidiary’s asset coverage SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ratio by section 18(k) if it were itself a COMMISSION 1. The Company requests an BDC would also be excluded from the exemption pursuant to section 6(c) of Company’s consolidated asset coverage Sunshine Act Meeting the Act from the provisions of sections ratio. 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act to permit it 4. Section 6(c) of the Act, in relevant Notice is hereby given, pursuant to to adhere to a modified asset coverage part, permits the Commission to exempt the provisions of the Government in the requirement with respect to any direct any transaction or class of transactions Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of from any provision of the Act if and to the Securities and Exchange the Company that is licensed by the the extent that such exemption is Commission will hold an Open Meeting SBA to operate under the SBIA as a necessary or appropriate in the public on August 24, 2011 at 10 a.m., in the SBIC and relies on Section 3(c)(7) for an interest and consistent with the Auditorium, Room L–002, to hear oral exemption from the definition of protection of investors and the purposes argument in an appeal by Eric J. Brown, ‘‘investment company’’ under the 1940 fairly intended by the policy and Matthew J. Collins, Kevin J. Walsh, and Act (each, a ‘‘SBIC Subsidiary’’).2 provisions of the Act. Applicants state Mark W. Wells (collectively, that the requested relief satisfies the ‘‘Respondents’’) and a cross-appeal by 1 Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed- section 6(c) standard. Applicants the Division of Enforcement from an end investment company that operates for the initial decision of an administrative law purpose of making investments in securities contend that, because the SBIC described in section 55(a)(1) through 55(a)(3) of the Subsidiary would be entitled to rely on judge. Act and makes available significant managerial section 18(k) if it were a BDC itself, Brown and Walsh were formerly assistance with respect to the issuers of such associated with registered broker-dealer securities. there is no policy reason to deny the 2 All existing entities that currently intend to rely Prime Capital Services, Inc. (‘‘Prime on the order are named as applicants. Any other in the future will comply with the terms and Capital’’), and Collins and Wells are existing or future entity that may rely on the order condition of the order. currently associated with Prime Capital.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52369

The law judge found that, in sales of Dated: August 17, 2011. The Commission is publishing this variable annuities to elderly customers, Elizabeth M. Murphy, notice to solicit comments on the Respondents violated Section 17(a) of Secretary. proposed rule change from interested the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) [FR Doc. 2011–21463 Filed 8–18–11; 11:15 am] persons. of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, BILLING CODE 8011–01–P I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s and Exchange Act Rule 10b–5, and Statement of the Terms of Substance of Exchange Act Section 17(a) and the Proposed Rule Change Exchange Act Rule 17a–3. The law SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE judge also found that Collins failed to COMMISSION The Exchange proposes to modify Exchange Rule 7050 governing pricing reasonably supervise Brown within the [Release No. 34–65138; File No. SR– for NASDAQ members using the meaning of Exchange Act Sections NASDAQ–2011–112] NASDAQ Options Market (‘‘NOM’’), 15(b)(4)(E) and 15(b)(6). For these NASDAQ’s facility for executing and violations, the law judge issued cease- Self-Regulatory Organizations; The routing standardized equity and index and-desist orders against Respondents, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of options. Specifically, NOM proposes to ordered Respondents to disgorge Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of modify pricing for the Penny Pilot 3 commissions earned from selling certain Proposed Rule Change Relating to Options (‘‘Penny Options’’) with respect variable annuities, barred Respondents Customer Rebates in Penny Pilot to the Customer Rebate to Add from associating with a broker, dealer, Options Liquidity. or investment adviser, and imposed a August 15, 2011. The text of the proposed rule change third-tier civil monetary penalty of Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the is set forth below. Proposed new text is $130,000 against each Respondent. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in italics and deleted text is in Issues likely to be considered at oral (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 [brackets]. argument include whether Respondents notice is hereby given that on August 5, * * * * * violated the above provisions and, if so, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC 7050. NASDAQ Options Market the extent to which, under the (‘‘NASDAQ’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with The following charges shall apply to the circumstances, sanctions are warranted. the Securities and Exchange use of the order execution and routing For further information, please Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) services of the NASDAQ Options Market for the proposed rule change as described contact the Office of the Secretary at all securities. in Items I, II, and III below, which Items (202) 551–5400. (1) Fees for Execution of Contracts on the have been prepared by the Exchange. NASDAQ Options Market

FEES AND REBATES [per executed contract]

Profes- Non-NOM NOM market Customer sional Firm market maker maker

Penny Pilot Options: Rebate to Add Liquidity ...... ◊ [$0.36 ] $0.29 $0.10 $0.25 $0.30 Fee for Removing Liquidity ...... $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 NDX and MNX: Rebate to Add Liquidity ...... $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.20 Fee for Removing Liquidity ...... $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.40 All Other Options: Fee for Adding Liquidity ...... $0.00 $0.20 $0.45 $0.45 $0.30 Fee for Removing Liquidity ...... $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 Rebate to Add Liquidity ...... $0.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

◊ The Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options will be paid as follows:

Rebate to add Monthly volume liquidity

Tier 1 ...... 0–499,999 $0.26 Tier 2 ...... 500,000–799,999 $0.32 Tier 3 ...... 800,000–1,199,999 $0.36 Tier 4 ...... 1,200,000 and up $0.38

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). establishing Penny Pilot); 60874 (October 23, 2009), (February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR–NASDAQ– (SR–NASDAQ–2010–013) (notice of filing and 3 The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 2009–091) (notice of filing and immediate immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes and in October 2009 was expanded and extended effectiveness expanding and extending Penny to Penny Pilot); and 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR through December 31, 2010. See Securities Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292 25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR–NASDAQ–2010–053) Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), (November 17, 2009) (SR–NASDAQ–2009–097) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding 73 FR 18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR–NASDAQ–2008– (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot). See also 026) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61455 Exchange Rule Chapter VI, Section 5.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52370 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

(2)–(4) No Change II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s assessed for option orders entered into * These fees are applicable to orders routed Statement of the Purpose of, and NOM. Specifically, NASDAQ is to ISE that are subject to Rebates and Fees for Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule proposing to modify pricing for the Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Change Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in Symbols. See ISE’s Schedule of Fees for the In its filing with the Commission, the Penny Options to create monthly complete list of symbols that are subject to Exchange included statements volume tiers. The Exchange believes the these fees. concerning the purpose of, and basis for, monthly volume thresholds will ** These fees are applicable to orders the proposed rule change and discussed incentivize firms that route Customer routed to PHLX that are subject to Rebates any comments it received on the orders to the Exchange to increase and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity proposed rule change. The text of these Customer order flow to the Exchange. in Select Symbols. See PHLX’s Fee Schedule statements may be examined at the for the complete list of symbols that are The Exchange currently pays a places specified in Item IV below. The subject to these fees. Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity of Exchange has prepared summaries, set $0.36 per executed contract to members * * * * * forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of providing liquidity through NOM in The text of the proposed rule change the most significant aspects of such Penny Options. The Exchange proposes is available on the Exchange’s Web site statements. to amend this rebate so that Customers at http:// A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s will receive a Rebate to Add Liquidity www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the Statement of the Purpose of, and based on their total number of Customer principal office of the Exchange, and at Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule contracts that add liquidity in Penny the Commission’s Public Reference Change Options in a given month. The Room. Exchange proposes to pay a Customer 1. Purpose Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny NASDAQ is proposing to modify Rule Options based on four volume tiers as 7050 governing the rebates and fees follows:

Rebate to add Monthly volume liquidity

Tier 1 ...... 0–499,999 $0.26 Tier 2 ...... 500,000–799,999 $0.32 Tier 3 ...... 800,000–1,199,999 $0.36 Tier 4 ...... 1,200,000 and up $0.38

By way of example, the Exchange and benefit all market participants. and regulatory requirements,6 which would pay a Rebate to Add Liquidity of While the Exchange is lowering the normally do not apply to other market $0.36 per contract to a NOM Participant current Rebate to Add Liquidity for participants. Customers receive a higher that executed 900,000 Customer Customers in tiers 1 and 2, the Exchange Rebate to Add Liquidity for all tiers as contracts that added liquidity in Penny believes that broker-dealers acting as compared to a Firm and Non-NOM Options in a given month. If the NOM agent for Customer orders will in fact be Market Maker.7 Participant executed 1,500,000 incentivized to bring additional order The Exchange believes the proposed Customer contracts that added liquidity flow to the Exchange and obtain higher monthly tier structure for Customer in Penny Options in a given month, the rebates. Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Exchange would pay a Rebate to Add Furthermore, the Exchange believes Options is also reasonable because the Liquidity of $0.38 per contract. that the proposed Customer monthly amount of the rebate is similar to a tiered rebate offered by NYSE Arca, Inc. 2. Statutory Basis volume tier Rebates to Add Liquidity are equitable and not unfairly (‘‘NYSE Arca’’). NYSE Arca pays a per NASDAQ believes that the proposed discriminatory because the Rebates to contract rate on all posted liquidity in rule changes are consistent with the Add Liquidity are higher in tier levels Customer Penny Pilot Issues by provisions of Section 6 of the Act,4 in 2, 3 and 4 for Customers as compared aggregating total contracts executed that general, and with Section 6(b)(4) of the to all other market participants. With added liquidity in Penny Pilot Issues in Act,5 in particular, in that it provides for 8 respect to tier level 1, the Exchange is a given month. the equitable allocation of reasonable proposing to pay a Customer a lower dues, fees and other charges among 6 Rebate to Add Liquidity as compared to Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), members and issuers and other persons Section 5 (Obligations of Market Makers), in a Professional and NOM Market Maker. using any facility or system which registering as a market maker, an Options The Exchange believes that this Participant commits himself to various obligations. NASDAQ operates or controls. Transactions of a Market Maker in its market The Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because the Customer has the opportunity to earn making capacity must constitute a course of proposed monthly tier structure for dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity in higher rebates with the tier structure as maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Penny Options is equitable, reasonable compared to a Professional, who will Market Makers should not make bids or offers or only receive a $0.29 per contract Rebate enter into transactions that are inconsistent with and not unfairly discriminatory because such course of dealings. Further, all Market Makers by incentivizing broker-dealers acting as to Add Liquidity, and a NOM Market are designated as specialists on NOM for all agent for Customer orders to select the Maker, who will only receive a $0.30 purposes under the Act or rules thereunder. See Exchange as a venue to post Customer per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity. Chapter VII, Section 5. 7 orders will attract Customer order flow Additionally, with respect to NOM A Firm receives a $0.10 per contract Rebate to Market Makers, the proposed fee Add Liquidity and a Non-NOM Market maker receives a $0.25 per contract Rebate to Add 4 15 U.S.C. 78f. structure is equitable because market Liquidity. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). makers have obligations to the market 8 See NYSE Arca’s Fee Schedule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52371

The Exchange believes that the Electronic Comments SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE proposed monthly tier structure for • COMMISSION Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity in Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Penny Options is equitable and not [Release No. 34–65142; File No. SR–Phlx– rules/sro.shtml); or unfairly discriminatory because the 2011–112] Exchange would uniformly pay a Rebate • Send an e-mail to rule- to Add Liquidity to Customers [email protected]. Please include File Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice executing Penny Options based on the Number SR–NASDAQ–2011–112 on the of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness monthly tiers proposed herein. subject line. of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ The Exchange operates in a highly OMX PHLX LLC Relating to Clarifying competitive market comprised of nine Paper Comments Amendments to the Rule Book U.S. options exchanges in which • sophisticated and knowledgeable Send paper comments in triplicate August 16, 2011. to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, market participants can readily send Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the order flow to competing exchanges if Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Securities Exchange Act of 1934 they deem fee levels at a particular 1 2 20549–1090. (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, exchange to be excessive. The Exchange notice is hereby given that, on August believes that the proposed rebate All submissions should refer to File 8, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC structure and tiers are competitive and Number SR–NASDAQ–2011–112. This (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the similar to other rebates and tiers in file number should be included on the Securities and Exchange Commission place on other exchanges. The Exchange subject line if e-mail is used. To help the (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed believes that this competitive Commission process and review your rule change as described in Items I, II, marketplace impacts the rebates present comments more efficiently, please use and III below, which Items have been on the Exchange today and substantially only one method. The Commission will prepared by the Exchange. The influences the proposals set forth above. post all comments on the Commission’s Commission is publishing this notice to B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ solicit comments on the proposed rule Statement on Burden on Competition rules/sro/shtml). Copies of the change from interested persons. The Exchange does not believe that submission, all subsequent I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the proposed rule change will impose amendments, all written statements Statement of the Terms of Substance of any burden on competition not with respect to the proposed rule the Proposed Rule Change necessary or appropriate in furtherance change that are filed with the of the purposes of the Act. Commission, and all written The Exchange proposes to amend communications relating to the Exchange Rules 625, 3228 and Options C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Procedure Floor Advice (‘‘OFPA’’) F–10 Statement on Comments on the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than to eliminate unnecessary text and Proposed Rule Change Received From correct cross-references in Rule text. Members, Participants or Others those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the The Exchange also proposes to No written comments were either provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be eliminate an unnecessary title in the Rule Book. solicited or received. available for Web site viewing and III. Date of Effectiveness of the printing in the Commission’s Public The text of the proposed rule change Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., is available on the Exchange’s Web site Commission Action Washington, DC 20549, on official at http://nasdaqtrader.com/ micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the The foregoing rule change has become business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing principal office of the Exchange, at the effective pursuant to Section Commission’s Public Reference Room, 9 also will be available for inspection and 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and paragraph and on the Commission’s Web site at 10 copying at the principal office of the (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At any http://www.sec.gov. time within 60 days of the filing of the Exchange. All comments received will proposed rule change, the Commission be posted without change; the II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s summarily may temporarily suspend Commission does not edit personal Statement of the Purpose of, and such rule change if it appears to the identifying information from Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Commission that such action is submissions. You should submit only Change necessary or appropriate in the public information that you wish to make interest, for the protection of investors, available publicly. All submissions In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements or otherwise in furtherance of the should refer to File No. SR–NASDAQ– concerning the purpose of and basis for purposes of the Act. 2011–112 and should be submitted on the proposed rule change and discussed or before September 12, 2011. IV. Solicitation of Comments any comments it received on the Interested persons are invited to For the Commission, by the Division of proposed rule change. The text of these submit written data, views and Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated statements may be examined at the arguments concerning the foregoing, authority.11 places specified in Item IV below. The including whether the proposed rule Elizabeth M. Murphy, Exchange has prepared summaries, set change is consistent with the Act. Secretary. forth in sections A, B, and C below, of Comments may be submitted by any of [FR Doc. 2011–21319 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] the most significant aspects of such statements. the following methods: BILLING CODE 8011–01–P

9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52372 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s to delete this paragraph as the text is no SRO, and therefore has become Statement of the Purpose of, and longer necessary and outdated. effective. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Fourth, the Exchange is proposing a At any time within 60 days of the Change technical amendment to delete a filing of the proposed rule change, the reference to ‘‘ITS Rules’’ in the Rule Commission summarily may 1. Purpose Book. The Exchange previously temporarily suspend such rule change if The purpose of the proposed rule removed references to the Intermarket it appears to the Commission that such change is to eliminate unnecessary text Trading System (‘‘ITS’’) Plan and action is necessary or appropriate in the and correct cross-references in the Rule deleted Exchange Rules 2000–2002.6 public interest, for the protection of Book. The various amendments relate to The Exchange proposes to delete this investors, or otherwise in furtherance of cross-references and text in several reference as it is unnecessary. the purposes of the Act. If the Rules that were not deleted in While changes pursuant to this Commission takes such action, the connection with other rule filings. The proposal are immediately effective, the Commission shall institute proceedings Exchange proposes four amendments. Exchange designates the amendment to to determine whether the proposed rule First, the Exchange proposes to Exchange Rule 3228 become operative should be approved or disapproved. amend language in Exchange Rule 625, on August 26, 2011. IV. Solicitation of Comments entitled ‘‘Training’’ to remove a 2. Statutory Basis Interested persons are invited to reference to a ‘‘PAU.’’ This reference submit written data, views, and The Exchange believes that its relates to a term that was used in arguments concerning the foregoing, proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) connection with XLE, the Exchange’s including whether the proposed rule of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the former equity trading system, which is change is consistent with the Act. objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 no longer utilized. The Exchange Comments may be submitted by any of in particular, in that it is designed to recently eliminated all references to the following methods: XLE, including the definition of a promote just and equitable principles of Participant Authorized User of ‘‘PAU.’’ 3 trade, to remove impediments to and Electronic Comments The Exchange proposes to eliminate the perfect the mechanism of a free and • Use the Commission’s Internet reference to a PAU in Exchange Rule open market and a national market comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 625 as the term is no longer necessary. system, and, in general to protect rules/sro.shtml); or Second, the Exchange proposes to investors and the public interest, by • Send an e-mail to rule- amend a reference in Exchange Rule amending the text of the Exchange Rules [email protected]. Please include File 3228, entitled ‘‘Compliance with Rules and OFPA to update cross-references Number SR–Phlx–2011–112 on the and Registration Requirements.’’ The and remove outdated and unnecessary subject line. text. The Exchange believes that these Exchange recently amended Exchange Paper Comments Rule 3211 to move certain text in amendments will clarify the Exchange’s • paragraphs (a) through (c) to a new Rules to the benefit of the membership. Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Exchange Rule 911, entitled ‘‘Member B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Securities and Exchange Commission, and Member Organization Statement on Burden on Competition Participation.’’ 4 The Exchange proposes 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC to replace the reference to Exchange The Exchange does not believe that 20549–1090. Rule 3211 with Exchange Rule 911 the proposed rule change will impose All submissions should refer to File within Exchange Rule 3228 to reflect the any burden on competition not Number SR–Phlx–2011–112. This file current location of the referenced text. necessary or appropriate in furtherance number should be included on the of the purposes of the Act. Third, the Exchange also proposes to subject line if e-mail is used. To help the delete text in OFPA F–10, entitled C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission process and review your ‘‘Unusual Market Conditions.’’ The Statement on Comments on the comments more efficiently, please use Exchange previously filed a proposed Proposed Rule Change Received From only one method. The Commission will rule change to delete Exchange Rule Members, Participants, or Others post all comments on the Commission’s 1015, entitled ‘‘Execution Guarantee’’ Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ No written comments were either rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the and OFPA A–11, entitled solicited or received. ‘‘Responsibility To Fill Customer submission, all subsequent Orders.’’ 5 The Exchange deleted both III. Date of Effectiveness of the amendments, all written statements Rule 1015 and OFPA A–11 because Proposed Rule Change and Timing for with respect to the proposed rule those rules were outdated due to the Commission Action change that are filed with the combination of the adoption of firm Commission, and all written Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the communications relating to the quote obligations in options and 9 10 Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(1) thereunder, proposed rule change between the increased automation. The text of OFPA the Exchange has designated this F–10 references both Exchange Rule Commission and any person, other than proposal as one that constitutes a stated those that may be withheld from the 1015 and OFPA A–11 in the second policy, practice or interpretation with paragraph. The Exchange is proposing public in accordance with the respect to the meaning, administration, provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be or enforcement of an existing rule of the 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64338 available for Web site viewing and (April 25, 2011), 76 FR 24069 (April 29, 2011) (SR– printing in the Commission’s Public Phlx–2011–13). 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55569 Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65010 (April 2, 2007), 72 FR 17978 (April 10, 2007) (SR– Phlx–2007–31). Washington, DC 20549, on official (August 2, 2011), 76 FR 48195 (August 8, 2011) business days between the hours of 10 (SR–Phlx–2011–100). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63064 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also (October 7, 2010), 75 FR 63231 (October 14, 2010) 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). will be available for inspection and (SR–Phlx–2010–136). 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(1). copying at the principal office of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52373

Exchange. All comments received will property and collateral deposited with Members shall execute any documents be posted without change; the the Clearing House by the Clearing required by CME to create and enforce Commission does not edit personal Member which is the property of the such lien.’’ identifying information from Clearing Member. Clearing Members New proposed Rule 819 only affects submissions. You should submit only shall execute any documents required the futures clearing operations of CME. information that you wish to make by CME to create and enforce such lien. It does not significantly affect any available publicly. All submissions securities clearing operations of CME or II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s should refer to File Number SR–Phlx– any related rights or obligations of CME Statement of Purpose of, and Statutory 2011–112 and should be submitted on clearing members. As discussed above, Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change or before September 12, 2011. current CME Rule 8F008 currently In its filing with the Commission, the For the Commission, by the Division of applies to CME clearing members and is Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated self-regulatory organization included the operative rule covering the subject authority.11 statements concerning the purpose and matter of proposed Rule 819 with Elizabeth M. Murphy, basis for the proposed rule change and respect to CME’s security-based swaps discussed any comments it received on Secretary. clearing activities. As such, the the proposed rule change. The text of proposed rule change effects a change in [FR Doc. 2011–21321 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] these statements may be examined at BILLING CODE 8011–01–P an existing service of a registered the places specified in Item IV below. clearing agency that primarily affects The self-regulatory organization has the futures clearing operations of the prepared summaries, set forth in SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE clearing agency with respect to futures sections A, B, and C below, of the most COMMISSION that are not security futures and does significant aspects of such statements. not significantly affect any securities [Release No. 34–65141; File No. SR–CME– clearing operations of the clearing 2011–01] A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of Purpose of, and Statutory agency or any related rights or Self-Regulatory Organizations; Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change obligations of the clearing agency or persons using such service. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc.; Current CME Rule 902.F provides that CME also submitted a filing to the Notice of Filing and Immediate ‘‘[e]ach Clearing Member hereby grants Commodity Futures Trading Effectiveness of Proposed Rule to the Clearing House a first priority and Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) regarding Change To Adopt a New Rule unencumbered lien against all proposed Rule 819 pursuant to CFTC Regarding Liens on Collateral That memberships required for clearing Regulation 40.6 on July 26, 2011 with a Relates Solely to Its Futures Clearing membership by the Exchange.’’ Other proposed effective date of August 9, Operations CME rules in Chapters 8 and 9 of the 2011 (that is, ten business days after the CME rulebook address the CME Clearing August 16, 2011. date of the submission). House’s security interest in CME Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the clearing member’s guaranty fund and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s performance bond deposits (perfected (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 Statement on Burden on Competition by possession of the collateral), but do notice is hereby given that on August 5, CME does not believe that the not contain the type of express language 2011, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. proposed rule change will have any as appears in Rule 902.F. In order to (‘‘CME’’) filed with the Securities and impact, or impose any burden, on more clearly indicate CME Clearing’s Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) competition. security interest in CME clearing the proposed rule change described in member’s guaranty fund and C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Items I and II below, which items have performance bond deposits, CME Statement on Comments on the been prepared primarily by CME. CME proposes to adopt new CME Rule 819, Proposed Rule Change Received From filed the proposed rule change pursuant 3 which states as follows: Members, Participants, or Others to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Each Clearing Member hereby grants Rule 19b–4(f)(4)(ii) 4 thereunder. CME has not solicited, and does not to the Clearing House a first priority and intend to solicit, comments regarding I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s unencumbered lien, as security for all this proposed rule change. CME has not Statement of Terms of Substance of the obligations of such Clearing Member to received any unsolicited written Proposed Rule Change the Clearing House, against any property comments from interested parties. The text of the proposed rule change and collateral deposited with the III. Date of Effectiveness of the is below. Italicized text indicates Clearing House by the Clearing Member Proposed Rule Change and Timing for additions; bracketed text indicates which is the property of the Clearing Commission Action deletions. Member. Clearing Members shall execute any documents required by * * * * * The foregoing rule change has been CME to create and enforce such lien. 5 Rule 819. [Reserved] Lien on filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of The proposed rule language mirrors Collateral. the Act and paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of Rule that of CME Rule 8F008 (Lien on 6 Each Clearing Member hereby grants 19b–4 thereunder and will become Collateral), in Chapter 8F (Over-the- 7 to the Clearing House a first priority and effective on August 9, 2011, the same Counter Derivative Clearing) of the CME unencumbered lien, as security for all date CME’s corresponding filing with rule book, which states that ‘‘[e]ach OTC obligations of such Clearing Member to Clearing Member hereby grants to CME 5 the Clearing House, against any Supra note 3. a first priority and unencumbered lien 6 Supra note 4. 7 The Commission notes that the proposed rule 11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). against any cash, securities or other change became effective upon filing under Section 1 collateral deposited with the Clearing 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act. CME’s statement indicates 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. House by the OTC Clearing Member that the proposed rule change, which became 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). which is the property of the OTC effective on August 5, 2011, will not become 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(4)(ii). Clearing Member. OTC Clearing operative until August 9, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52374 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

the CFTC becomes effective. At any time For the Commission by the Division of A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s within sixty days of the filing of such Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Statement of the Purpose of, and rule change, the Commission summarily authority.8 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule may temporarily suspend such rule Elizabeth M. Murphy, Change change if it appears to the Commission Secretary. 1. Purpose that such action is necessary or [FR Doc. 2011–21348 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] appropriate in the public interest, for BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Currently, NOS is the approved the protection of investors, or otherwise outbound routing facility of The in furtherance of the purposes of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Act. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE (‘‘NASDAQ’’) for options, providing COMMISSION outbound routing from The NASDAQ IV. Solicitation of Comments Option Market (‘‘NOM’’) to other market centers.3 Interested persons are invited to [Release No. 34–65140; File No. SR–Phlx- Phlx also has been previously submit written data, views and 2011–116] approved to receive inbound routes of arguments concerning the foregoing, certain option orders by NOS in its including whether the proposed rule Self-Regulatory Organizations; capacity as an order routing facility of change is consistent with the Act. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of NASDAQ for NOM on a pilot basis.4 Comments may be submitted by any of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of The Exchange hereby seeks to extend the following methods: Proposed Rule Change Extending the the previously approved pilot period for • Electronic comments may be Pilot Period To Receive Inbound such inbound routing (with the submitted by using the Commission’s Routes of Orders From NASDAQ attendant obligations and conditions) Internet comment form (http://www.sec. Options Services for an additional 3 months through gov/rules/sro.shtml), or send an e-mail November 25, 2011.5 to [email protected]. Please August 16, 2011. 2. Statutory Basis include File No. SR–CME–2011–01 on Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the The Exchange believes that the the subject line. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Paper comments should be sent in proposed rule change is consistent with (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,6 notice is hereby given that on August Secretary, Securities and Exchange in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of 11, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Commission, 100 F Street, NE., the Act,7 in particular, in that the (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Washington, DC, 20549–1090. proposal is designed to prevent Securities and Exchange Commission fraudulent and manipulative acts and All submissions should refer to File (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule practices, to promote just and equitable Number SR–CME–2011–01. This file change as described in Items I and II principles of trade, to foster cooperation number should be included on the below, which Items have been prepared subject line if e-mail is used. To help the and coordination with persons engaged by the Exchange. The Commission is in regulating, clearing, settling, Commission process and review your publishing this notice to solicit comments more efficiently, please use processing information with respect to, comments on the proposed rule change and facilitating transactions in only one method. The Commission will from interested persons. post all comments on the Commission’s securities, to remove impediments to Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s and perfect the mechanism of a free and rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Statement of the Terms of Substance of open market and a national market submission, all subsequent the Proposed Rule Change system, and, in general, to protect amendments, all written statements investors and the public interest. with respect to the proposed rule Phlx submits this proposed rule Specifically, the proposed rule change change that are filed with the change to extend the pilot period of will allow the Exchange to continue Commission, and all written Phlx’s prior approval to receive inbound receiving inbound routes of option communications relating to the routes of certain option orders from orders from NOS acting in its capacity proposed rule change between the Nasdaq Options Services, LLC (‘‘NOS’’) as a facility of NASDAQ for NOM, in a Commission and any person, other than through November 25, 2011. manner consistent with prior approvals those that may be withheld from the II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s and established protections. The public in accordance with the Statement of the Purpose of, and Exchange believes that extending the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule previously approved pilot period for available for website viewing and Change three months is of sufficient length to printing in the Commission’s Public permit both the Exchange and the Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., In its filing with the Commission, Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such Phlx included statements concerning 3 NOM Rule Chapter VI, Section 11; See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March filing also will be available for the purpose of and basis for the 12, 2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR– inspection and copying at the principal proposed rule change and discussed any NASDAQ–2007–004; SR–NASDAQ–2007–080). office of CME. All comments received comments it received on the proposed 4 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58179 will be posted without change; the rule change. The text of these statements (July 17, 2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23, 2008) (SR– Commission does not edit personal may be examined at the places specified Phlx–2008–31); 61667 (March 5, 2010), 75 FR 11964 (March 12, 2010) (SR–Phlx-2010–36); 61668 (March identifying information from in Item IV below. Phlx has prepared 5, 2010), 75 FR 12323 (March 15, 2010) (SR– submissions. You should submit only summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, NASDAQ–2010–028); 63873 (February 9, 2011), 76 information that you wish to make and C below, of the most significant FR 8798 (February 15, 2011) (SR–Phlx–2011–16). available publicly. aspects of such statements. 5 The Exchange has filed a separate proposal with the Commission seeking permanent approval of the All submissions should refer to File Phlx and NOS routing relationship. See SR–Phlx– Number SR–CME–2011–01 and should 8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2011–111. be submitted on or before September 12, 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f. 2011. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52375

Commission to assess the impact of the permanent is under consideration. the principal offices of the Exchange. Exchange’s authority to receive direct Therefore, the Commission designates All comments received will be posted inbound routes of option orders via the proposal operative upon filing.11 without change; the Commission does NOS (including the attendant At any time within 60 days of the not edit personal identifying obligations and conditions) while the filing of the proposed rule change, the information from submissions. You Commission evaluates the Exchange’s Commission summarily may should submit only information that pending rule change to make the pilot temporarily suspend such rule change if you wish to make available publicly. All program permanent. it appears to the Commission that such submissions should refer to File action is necessary or appropriate in the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Number SR–Phlx-2011–116, and should Statement on Burden on Competition public interest, for the protection of be submitted on or before September 12, investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 2011. The Exchange does not believe that the purposes of the Act. the proposed rule change will impose For the Commission, by the Division of IV. Solicitation of Comments Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated any burden on competition not authority.12 necessary or appropriate in furtherance Interested persons are invited to Elizabeth M. Murphy, of the purposes of the Act, as amended. submit written data, views, and Secretary. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule [FR Doc. 2011–21320 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Statement on Comments on the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Proposed Rule Change Received From change is consistent with the Act. Members, Participants, or Others Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: No written comments were either SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE solicited or received. Electronic Comments COMMISSION • III. Date of Effectiveness of the Use the Commission’s Internet Proposed Rule Change and Timing for comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ [Release No. 34–65143; File No. SR–BYX– 2011–016] Commission Action rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an e-mail to rule- Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Because the foregoing proposed rule [email protected]. Please include File Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and change does not significantly affect the Number SR–Phlx-2011–116 on the Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed protection of investors or the public subject line. interest, does not impose any significant Rule Change Related to Fees for Use burden on competition, and, by its Paper Comments of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. terms, does not become operative for 30 • Send paper comments in triplicate days from the date on which it was August 16, 2011. to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, filed, or such shorter time as the Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commission may designate, it has Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the become effective pursuant to Section 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b– 20549–1090. notice is hereby given that on August 4(f)(6) thereunder.9 All submissions should refer to File 12, 2011, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the The Exchange has requested that the Number SR–Phlx-2011–116. This file ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BYX’’) filed with the Commission waive the 30-day operative number should be included on the Securities and Exchange Commission delay. The Exchange believes that the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule proposed rule change does not Commission process and review your change as described in Items I, II and III significantly affect the protection of comments more efficiently, please use below, which Items have been prepared investors or the public interest because only one method. The Commission will by the Exchange. The Exchange has it seeks to extend for a limited period post all comments on the Commission’s designated the proposed rule change as a currently operating pilot program so as Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ one establishing or changing a member to allow the Exchange and Commission rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the due, fee, or other charge imposed by the to assess whether to make the pilot submission, all subsequent Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) permanent in accordance with its amendments, all written statements of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) attendant obligations and conditions.10 with respect to the proposed rule thereunder,4 which renders the The Commission believes that waiver of change that are filed with the proposed rule change effective upon the operative delay is consistent with Commission, and all written filing with the Commission. The the protection of investors and the communications relating to the Commission is publishing this notice to public interest because such waiver proposed rule change between the solicit comments on the proposed rule would allow the pilot period to be Commission and any person, other than change from interested persons. extended without undue delay through those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s November 25, 2011 while the Statement of the Terms of Substance of Exchange’s proposal to make the pilot provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and the Proposed Rule Change 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). printing in the Commission’s Public The Exchange proposes to amend the 9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– Reference Room on official business fee schedule applicable to Members 5 of 4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the days between the hours of 10 a.m. and Commission written notice of the Exchange’s intent 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief 1 description and text of the proposed rule change, available for inspection and copying at 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). at least five business days prior to the date of filing 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time 11 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). as designated by the Commission. The Exchange operative delay, the Commission has considered the 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). has satisfied this requirement. proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 5 A Member is any registered broker or dealer that 10 See SR–Phlx-2011–116, Item 7. and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52376 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

the Exchange pursuant to BYX Rules Exchange for all other Destination Commission summarily may 15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee Specific Orders. temporarily suspend such rule change if schedule pursuant to this proposal will it appears to the Commission that such 2. Statutory Basis be effective upon filing. action is necessary or appropriate in the The text of the proposed rule change The Exchange believes that the public interest, for the protection of is available at the Exchange’s Web site proposed rule change is consistent with investors, or otherwise in furtherance of at http://www.batstrading.com, at the the requirements of the Act and the the purposes of the Act. principal office of the Exchange, and at rules and regulations thereunder that IV. Solicitation of Comments the Commission’s Public Reference are applicable to a national securities Room. exchange, and, in particular, with the Interested persons are invited to 8 submit written data, views, and II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s requirements of Section 6 of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that arguments concerning the foregoing, Statement of the Purpose of, and including whether the proposed rule Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule the proposed rule change is consistent 9 change is consistent with the Act. Change with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, in that it provides for the equitable allocation Comments may be submitted by any of In its filing with the Commission, the of reasonable dues, fees and other the following methods: Exchange included statements charges among members and other concerning the purpose of and basis for Electronic Comments persons using any facility or system • the proposed rule change and discussed which the Exchange operates or Use the Commission’s Internet any comments it received on the controls. The Exchange notes that it comment form http://www.sec.gov/ proposed rule change. The text of these operates in a highly competitive market rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an E-mail to rule- statements may be examined at the in which market participants can [email protected]. Please include File places specified in Item IV below. The readily direct order flow to competing No. SR–BYX–2011–016 on the subject Exchange has prepared summaries, set venues if they deem fee levels at a line. forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of particular venue to be excessive. The the most significant parts of such Exchange believes that the proposed Paper Comments statements. changes to certain of the Exchange’s • Send paper comments in triplicate A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s non-standard routing fees and strategies to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Statement of the Purpose of, and are competitive, fair and reasonable, and Securities and Exchange Commission, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule non-discriminatory in that they are 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Change equally applicable to all Members and 20549–1090. are designed to mirror or provide a 1. Purpose All submissions should refer to File discount to the cost applicable to the Number SR–BYX–2011–016. This file The Exchange proposes to modify its execution if such routed orders were number should be included on the fee schedule applicable to use of the executed directly by the Member at subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Exchange in order to modify pricing EDGA Exchange. Commission process and review your related to executions that occur on comments more efficiently, please use EDGA EXCHANGE, Inc. (‘‘EDGA’’) B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s only one method. The Commission will through either a BYX + EDGA Statement on Burden on Competition post all comments on the Commission’s Destination Specific Order 6 or through The Exchange does not believe that Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ the Exchange’s TRIM routing strategy.7 the proposed rule change imposes any rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the EDGA is implementing certain pricing burden on competition. submission, all subsequent changes effective August 1, 2011, amendments, all written statements including introduction of a fee to C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s remove liquidity of $0.0006 per share. Statement on Comments on the with respect to the proposed rule To maintain a direct pass through of the Proposed Rule Change Received From change that are filed with the applicable cost to execute at EDGA, the Members, Participants or Others Commission, and all written communications relating to the Exchange proposes to charge $0.0006 No written comments were solicited proposed rule change between the per share for an order routed through its or received. TRIM routing strategy and executed on Commission and any person, other than EDGA. Similarly, because EDGA is part III. Date of Effectiveness of the those that may be withheld from the of the Exchange’s ‘‘One Under’’ pricing Proposed Rule Change and Timing for public in accordance with the program for Destination Specific Orders, Commission Action provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be the Exchange intends to continue to Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of available for Web site viewing and charge $0.0001 per share less than if a the Act 10 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) printing in the Commission’s Public Member executed an order directly on thereunder,11 the Exchange has Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., EDGA. Accordingly, the Exchange designated this proposal as establishing Washington, DC 20549, on official proposes to charge $0.0005 per share for or changing a due, fee, or other charge business days between the hours of an order routed as a Destination Specific applicable to the Exchange’s Members 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing Order to EDGA and executed on EDGA, and non-members, which renders the also will be available for inspection and which is $0.0001 per share less than proposed rule change effective upon copying at the principal office of the EDGA charges directly. The Exchange’s filing. Exchange. All comments received will ‘‘One Under’’ pricing does not apply to At any time within 60 days of the be posted without change; the securities priced below $1.00. In filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission does not edit personal addition, the Exchange will maintain identifying information from the pricing currently charged by the 8 15 U.S.C. 78f. submissions. You should submit only 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). information that you wish to make 6 As defined in BYX Rule 11.9(c)(12). 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). available publicly. All submissions 7 As defined in BYX Rule 11.13(a)(3)(G). 11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). should refer to File Number SR–BYX–

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52377

2011–016 and should be submitted on 18, 2011 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on pursuant to Section 12(k) of the or before September 12, 2011. August 31, 2011. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that For the Commission, by the Division of By the Commission. trading in the securities of the above- Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Jill M. Peterson, listed companies is suspended for the 12 period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August authority. Assistant Secretary. Elizabeth M. Murphy, 18, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on [FR Doc. 2011–21481 Filed 8–18–11; 4:15 pm] Secretary. August 31, 2011. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P [FR Doc. 2011–21349 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] By the Commission. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Jill M. Peterson, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Assistant Secretary. COMMISSION [FR Doc. 2011–21480 Filed 8–18–11; 4:15 pm] SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BILLING CODE 8011–01–P COMMISSION [File No. 500–1] [File No. 500–1] Consolidated Energy, Inc., Diamond Home Services, Inc., Goran Capital Colorado Wyoming Reserve Co., Grant Inc., Kingsley Coach, Inc. (The), SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Life Sciences, Inc., NOXSO Corp., Knockout Holdings, Inc., and Kuhlman Omni Medical Holdings, Inc., and TSI, Co., Inc.; Order of Suspension of National Small Business Development Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading Trading Center Advisory Board

August 18, 2011. August 18, 2011. AGENCY: U.S. Small Business It appears to the Securities and It appears to the Securities and Administration (SBA). Exchange Commission that there is a Exchange Commission that there is a ACTION: Notice of open Federal Advisory lack of current and accurate information lack of current and accurate information Committee meetings. concerning the securities of Colorado concerning the securities of Wyoming Reserve Company because it Consolidated Energy, Inc. because it has SUMMARY: The SBA is issuing this notice has not filed any periodic reports since not filed any periodic reports since the to announce the location, date, time and the period ended March 31, 2007. period ended September 30, 2006. agenda for the Board Meeting of the It appears to the Securities and It appears to the Securities and National Small Business Development Exchange Commission that there is a Exchange Commission that there is a Center (SBDC) Advisory Board at the lack of current and accurate information lack of current and accurate information ASBDC Conference. concerning the securities of Grant Life concerning the securities of Diamond DATES: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Sciences, Inc. because it has not filed Home Services, Inc. because it has not from 8:30 a.m.–12 p.m. any periodic reports since the period filed any periodic reports since the ended March 31, 2008. period ended September 30, 1999. ADDRESSES: Manchester Grand Hyatt, It appears to the Securities and It appears to the Securities and One Market Place, San Diego, CA 92101. Exchange Commission that there is a Exchange Commission that there is a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant lack of current and accurate information lack of current and accurate information to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory concerning the securities of NOXSO concerning the securities of Goran Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), Corp. because it has not filed any Capital Inc. because it has not filed any SBA announces the meetings of the periodic reports since the period ended periodic reports since the period ended National SBDC Advisory Board. This December 31, 2004. March 31, 2003. Board provides advice and counsel to It appears to the Securities and It appears to the Securities and the SBA Administrator and Associate Exchange Commission that there is a Exchange Commission that there is a Administrator for Small Business lack of current and accurate information lack of current and accurate information Development Centers. concerning the securities of Omni concerning the securities of Kingsley The purpose of these meetings is to Medical Holdings, Inc. because it has Coach, Inc. (The) because it has not filed discuss following issues pertaining to not filed any periodic reports since the any periodic reports since the period the SBDC Advisory Board.: period ended December 31, 2005. ended March 31, 2006. It appears to the Securities and It appears to the Securities and —SBA Update. Exchange Commission that there is a Exchange Commission that there is a —International Expansion. lack of current and accurate information lack of current and accurate information —Use of Social Media. concerning the securities of TSI, Inc. concerning the securities of Knockout —Member Roundtable. because it has not filed any periodic Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed reports since the period ended any periodic reports since the period FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The September 30, 2004. ended June 30, 2006. meeting is open to the public however The Commission is of the opinion that It appears to the Securities and advance notice of attendance is the public interest and the protection of Exchange Commission that there is a requested. Anyone wishing to be a investors require a suspension of trading lack of current and accurate information listening participant must contact in the securities of the above-listed concerning the securities of Kuhlman Alanna Falcone by fax or e-mail. Her companies. Therefore, it is ordered, Co., Inc. because it has not filed any contact information is Alanna Falcone, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the periodic reports since the period ended Program Analyst, 409 Third Street, SW., Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that October 28, 2006. Washington, DC 20416, Phone, 202– trading in the securities of the above- The Commission is of the opinion that 619–1612, Fax 202–481–0134, e-mail, listed companies is suspended for the the public interest and the protection of [email protected]. period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August investors require a suspension of trading Additionally, if you need in the securities of the above-listed accommodations because of a disability 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). companies. Therefore, it is ordered, or require additional information, please

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52378 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

contact Alanna Falcone at the DEPARTMENT OF STATE salary, contract number, position title, information above. and position number. [Public Notice 7562] 2. Contract Actions: Salary worksheet Dan S. Jones, computation(s), statement of work, Committee Management Officer. Privacy Act; System of Records: State- superior qualifications approval memo, [FR Doc. 2011–21302 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 76, Personal Services Contractor final letter of offer, copies of contract, BILLING CODE 8025–01–P Records performance evaluation form(s), SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that correspondences, advanced leave the Department of State proposes to request(s), and certificate(s) of training. 3. Contract Termination: Contractor’s DEPARTMENT OF STATE create a new system of records, Personal Services Contractor Records, State-76, release form and out-processing pursuant to the provisions of the checklist. [Public Notice: 7563] Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Culturally Significant Objects Imported U.S.C. 552a) and Office of Management 22 U.S.C. 2669(c). for Exhibition and Budget Circular No. A–130, Appendix I. The Department’s report PURPOSE: Determinations: ‘‘5,000 Years of was filed with the Office of Management To keep a record of personal services Chinese Jade Featuring Selections From and Budget on July 20, 2011. contractors; to document personal the National Museum of History, It is proposed that the new system be services contract record files, reports of Taiwan and the Arthur M. Sackler named ‘‘Personal Services Contractor contractor actions, and the documents Gallery, Smithsonian Institution’’ Records.’’ It is also proposed that the required in connection with the Exhibition new system description will document contractor during his or her personal services contract record files, employment. ACTION: Notice, correction. reports of contractor actions, and the documents required in connection with ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SUMMARY: On July 29, 2011, notice was the contractor during his or her SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND published on pages 45646 and 45647 of employment. Any persons interested in PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: the Federal Register (volume 76, commenting on the new system of The Department of State periodically number 146) of determination made by records may do so by writing to the publishes in the Federal Register its the Department of State pertaining to Director, Office of Information Programs standard routine uses that apply to all the exhibition ‘‘5,000 Years of Chinese and Services, A/GIS/IPS, Department of of its Privacy Act systems of records. Jade Featuring Selections From the State, SA–2, 515 22nd Street, These notices appear in the form of a National Museum of Taiwan and the Washington, DC 20522–8001. This Prefatory Statement. These standard Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian system of records will be effective 40 routine uses apply to Personal Services Institution.’’ The referenced notice is days from the date of publication, Contractor Records, State-76. corrected as to the name of the unless we receive comments that will exhibition, which is ‘‘5,000 Years of DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING result in a contrary determination. AGENCIES: Chinese Jade Featuring Selections from The new system description, None. the National Museum of History, ‘‘Personal Services Contractor Records, Taiwan and the Arthur M. Sackler State-76,’’ will read as set forth below. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Gallery, Smithsonian Institution.’’ The RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING AND Dated: July 20, 2011. exhibition or display of the exhibit DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: objects is at the San Antonio Museum William H. Moser, STORAGE: of Art, San Antonio, TX, from on or Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of about October 1, 2011, until on or about Administration, U.S. Department of State. Paper and electronic records. February 19, 2012, and at possible STATE–76 RETRIEVABILITY: additional exhibitions or venues yet to By individual name or Social Security SYSTEM NAME: be determined. I have ordered that number (SSN). Public Notice of the correction of the Personal Services Contractor Records. name be published in the Federal SAFEGUARDS: SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Register. All users are given cyber security Unclassified. awareness training which covers the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For procedures for handling Sensitive But further information, including a list of SYSTEM LOCATION: Unclassified information, including the exhibit objects, contact Julie Records are maintained at those personally identifiable information (PII). Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of offices that have personal services Annual refresher training is mandatory. the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of contractor hiring authority and their In addition, all Foreign Service, all Civil State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The corresponding automated data Service, and those Locally Engaged Staff mailing address is U.S. Department of processing facilities. who handle PII are required to take an State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite FSI distance learning course instructing 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: employees on privacy and security Dated: August 16, 2011. All personal services contractors with requirements, including the rules of J. Adam Ereli, the Department of State. behavior for handling PII and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau potential consequences if it is handled of Educational and Cultural Affairs, CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: improperly. Before being granted access Department of State. 1. Contractor Personnel File: Name, to Personal Services Contractor Records, [FR Doc. 2011–21366 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Social Security number, address, a user must first be granted access to the BILLING CODE 4710–05–P re´sume´s, clearance level, pay grade, Department of State computer system.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52379

Remote access to the Department of the Office of the Procurement Executive Electronic Access State network from non-Department to be checked. At a minimum, the An electronic copy of this document owned systems is authorized only individual must include: Name; date may be downloaded from the Federal through a Department approved access and place of birth; current mailing Register’s home page at: http:// program. Remote access to the network address and zip code; signature; the www.archives.gov and the Government is configured with the Office of approximate dates of employment with Printing Office’s database at: http:// Management and Budget Memorandum the Department of State; and the nature www.access.gpo.gov/nara. M–07–16 security requirements, which of such employment. include but are not limited to two-factor Background RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: authentication and time-out function. The FHWA’s Buy America policy in Individuals who wish to gain access All Department of State employees 23 CFR 635.410 requires a domestic to or amend records pertaining to and contractors with authorized access manufacturing process for any steel or themselves should write to the Director, have undergone a thorough background iron products (including protective Office of Information Programs and security investigation. Access to the coatings) that are permanently Services (address above). Department of State, its annexes and incorporated in a Federal-aid posts abroad is controlled by security CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: construction project. The regulation also guards and admission is limited to those (See above). provides for a waiver of the Buy individuals possessing a valid America requirements when the identification card or individuals under RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: application would be inconsistent with proper escort. All paper records These records contain information the public interest or when satisfactory containing personal information are obtained directly from the individual quality domestic steel and iron products maintained in secured file cabinets in who is the subject of these records, are not sufficiently available. This restricted areas, access to which is supervisors, and human resource staff of notice provides information regarding limited to authorized personnel only. the bureau that employs the personal the FHWA’s finding that a Buy America Access to computerized files is services contractor. waiver is appropriate to use non- password-protected and under the domestic 1⁄2″ × 0.008 steel fiber with direct supervision of the system SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS ultimate tensile strength of 290ksi for manager. The system manager has the OF THE ACT: experimental use in UHPC in Oregon capability of printing audit trails of None. and New York. access from the computer media, [FR Doc. 2011–21365 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] In accordance with Division A, thereby permitting regular and ad hoc BILLING CODE 4710–24–P section 123 of the ‘‘Consolidated monitoring of computer usage. Appropriations Act, 2010’’ (Pub. L. 111– When it is determined that a user no 117), the FHWA published a notice of longer needs access, the user account is DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION intent to issue a waiver on its Web site disabled. for 1⁄2″ × 0.008 steel fiber with ultimate RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Federal Highway Administration tensile strength of 290ksi for experimental use in UHPC in Oregon Records are disposed in accordance Buy America Waiver Notification and New York (http:// with published Department of State www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/ Records Disposition Schedules as AGENCY: Federal Highway contracts/waivers.cfm?id=55) on April approved by the National Archives and Administration (FHWA), DOT. 4th. The FHWA received seven Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Notice. comments in response to the Personal Services Contractor records are publication. Three commenters opposed transferred to a storage center and SUMMARY: This notice provides the waiver request but did not provide destroyed 6 years and 3 months after information regarding the FHWA’s information about domestic termination of the personal services finding that a Buy America waiver is manufacturers. Three other commenters contract. More specific information may appropriate for the use of non-domestic were in support of the waiver and be obtained by writing the Director, 1⁄2″ × 0.008 steel fiber with ultimate suggested that domestic manufacturers Office of Information Programs and tensile strength of 290ksi for of steel fibers should have been in Services, Department of State, SA–2, experimental use in Ultra High production by now. Oregon Department 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC Performance Concrete (UHPC) in of Transportation responded to each 20522–8001. Oregon and New York. comment received for this waiver DATES: The effective date of the waiver SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: request. During the 15-day comment is August 23, 2011. Office of the Procurement Executive period, the FHWA conducted additional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (A/OPE), Department of State, SA–27, For nationwide review to locate potential questions about this notice, please 1 ″ × 1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA domestic manufacturers for ⁄2 0.008 20522. contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA steel fiber with ultimate tensile strength Office of Program Administration, (202) of 290ksi for experimental use in UHPC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: 366–1562, or via e-mail at gerald. in Oregon and New York. Based on all Individuals who have cause to believe [email protected]. For legal the information available to the agency, that the Office of the Procurement questions, please contact Mr. Michael the FHWA concludes that there are no Executive here might have records Harkins, FHWA Office of the Chief domestic manufacturers of 1⁄2″ × 0.008 pertaining to them should write to the Counsel, (202) 366–4928, or via e-mail steel fiber with ultimate tensile strength Director, Office of Information Programs at [email protected]. Office of 290ksi for experimental use in UHPC and Services, Department of State, SA– hours for the FHWA are from 8 a.m. to in Oregon and New York. 2, 515 22nd Street, NW., Washington, 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, In accordance with the provisions of DC 20522–8001. The individual must except Federal holidays. section 117 of the SAFETEA–LU specify that he/she wishes the records of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

L. 110–244, 122 Stat. 1572), the FHWA construction project. The regulation also DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is providing this notice as its finding provides for a waiver of the Buy that a waiver of Buy America America requirements when the Federal Highway Administration requirements is appropriate. The FHWA application would be inconsistent with [Docket No. FHWA–2011–0050] invites public comment on this finding the public interest or when satisfactory for an additional 15 days following the quality domestic steel and iron products Temporary Closure of I–395 Just South effective date of the finding. Comments are not sufficiently available. This of Conway Street in the City of may be submitted to the FHWA’s Web notice provides information regarding Baltimore to Vehicular Traffic To site via the link provided to the Oregon/ the FHWA’s finding that a Buy America Accommodate the Construction and New York waiver page noted above. waiver is appropriate to use non- Operation of the Baltimore Grand Prix Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110–161, 3 ″ domestic 5 ⁄8 stud link chain on a AGENCIES: Federal Highway 23 CFR 635.410. Federal-aid project in Larose, Louisiana. Administration (FHWA), DOT. Issued on: August 15, 2011. In accordance with Division A, ACTION: Final Notice. Victor M. Mendez, section 123 of the ‘‘Consolidated Administrator. Appropriations Act, 2010’’ (Pub. L. 111– SUMMARY: The FHWA has approved a [FR Doc. 2011–21404 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 117), the FHWA published a notice of request from Maryland Transportation BILLING CODE 4910–22–P intent to issue a waiver on its Web site Authority (MDTA) to temporarily close (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/ a portion of I–395 (just south of Conway contracts/waivers.cfm?id=56) on April Street in Baltimore City) from DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 12th. The FHWA received three approximately 7 p.m. on Thursday, September 1, 2011, until approximately Federal Highway Administration comments in response to the publication. Two of the comments 6 a.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2011. The closure is requested to inquired for more detailed information Buy America Waiver Notification accommodate the construction and about the project and the purpose of operation of the Baltimore Grand Prix AGENCY: Federal Highway using the stud link chain on the project. (BGP), which will use the streets of Administration (FHWA), DOT. The third comment, by the Louisiana ACTION: Notice. downtown Baltimore as a race course. Department of Transportation, The approval is granted in accordance SUMMARY: This notice provides responded to the first two comments. with the provisions of 23 CFR 658.11 information regarding the FHWA’s The response provided additional which authorizes the deletion of finding that a Buy America waiver is information about the project, including segments of the federally designated 3 ″ appropriate for the use of non-domestic the purpose for the use of the 5 ⁄8 stud routes that make up the National 5 3⁄8″ stud link chain for a Recovery Act link chain. During the 15-day comment Network designated in Appendix A of bridge replacement project in Larose, period, the FHWA conducted additional 23 CFR Part 658. The FHWA published Louisiana. nationwide review to locate potential a Notice and Request for Comment on domestic manufacturers for 5 3⁄8″ stud June 28, 2011, seeking comments from DATES: The effective date of the waiver is August 23, 2011. link chain. Based on all the information the general public on this request available to the agency, the FHWA submitted by the MDTA for a deletion FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For concludes that there are no domestic in accordance with 23 CFR 658.11(d). questions about this notice, please manufacturers of 5 3⁄8″ stud link chain. No public comments were received. contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, (202) In accordance with the provisions of DATES: Effective Date(s): This Notice is 366–1562, or via e-mail at section 117 of the SAFETEA–LU effective immediately. [email protected]. For legal Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. questions, please contact Mr. Michael L. 110–244, 122 Stat. 1572), the FHWA John Nicholas, Truck Size and Weight Harkins, FHWA Office of the Chief is providing this notice as its finding Program Manager in the Office of Counsel, (202) 366–4928, or via e-mail that a waiver of Buy America Freight Management, (202) 366–2317; at [email protected]. Office requirements is appropriate. The FHWA Mr. William Winne, Office of the Chief hours for the FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. invites public comment on this finding Counsel, (202) 366–0791, Federal to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through for an additional 15 days following the Highway Administration, 1200 New Friday, except Federal holidays. effective date of the finding. Comments Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: may be submitted to the FHWA’s Web 20590; and Mr. Gregory Murrill, FHWA Division Administrator-DELMAR site via the link provided to the Electronic Access Division, (410) 962–4440. Office hours Louisiana page noted above. An electronic copy of this document for FHWA are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., may be downloaded from the Federal (Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110–161, e.t., Monday through Friday, except Register’s home page at: http:// 23 CFR 635.410) Federal holidays. www.archives.gov and the Government Issued on: August 15, 2011. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Printing Office’s database at: http:// Victor M. Mendez, Electronic Access and Filing www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Administrator. You may retrieve a copy of the Notice Background [FR Doc. 2011–21402 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] and Request for Comment, comments The FHWA’s Buy America policy in BILLING CODE 4910–22–P submitted to the docket, and a copy of 23 CFR 635.410 requires a domestic this final notice through the Federal manufacturing process for any steel or eRulemaking portal at: http:// iron products (including protective www.regulations.gov. The Web site is coatings) that are permanently available 24 hours each day, 365 days incorporated in a Federal-aid each year. Electronic submission and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52381

retrieval help and guidelines are Baltimore for 5 consecutive years businesses in the restricted area but, available under the help section of the beginning in 2011. The inaugural event currently using I–395 and the local Web site. is scheduled to occur September 2 street system to reach their ultimate An electronic copy of this document through September 4, 2011. The event is destinations, will be able to use the I– may also be downloaded from Office of expected to attract 150,000 spectators 95 interchanges north and south of I– the Federal Register’s home page at: over a 3–4 day period, not including the _ 395 to access the alternative routes. A http://www.archives.gov/federal register event organizer workforce and map depicting the alternative routes is and the Government Printing Office’s volunteers, the racing organizations and available electronically at the docket Web page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov. their respective personnel, or media and established for this notice at http:// vendors. Event planners expect Background www.regulations.gov. The MDTA has spectators from within a 400-mile radius reviewed these alternative routes and The MDTA submitted a request to the of the city, with a large portion traveling FHWA for approval of the temporary the I–95 corridor. It is anticipated that determined the routes to generally be closure of I–395 just south of Conway the attendance for the peak day capable of safely accommodating the Street in the city of Baltimore from the (Sunday) will reach 70,000 people with diverted traffic during the period of period beginning Thursday, September most arriving by private vehicle. temporary restriction. As mentioned 1, 2011, at approximately 7 p.m. The construction and operation of the previously, a sign and supplemental through Tuesday, September 6, 2011, at race course will create safety concerns traffic control system plan is also being around 6 a.m., encompassing the Labor by obstructing access from the I–395 developed as part of the event’s TMP. Day holiday. This closure will be northern terminus to the local street Commercial vehicles as well as general undertaken in support of the BGP which system including Howard Street, traffic leaving the downtown area will will use the streets of downtown Conway Street, and Lee Street. also be able to use the alternative routes Baltimore as a race course. The MDTA However, an existing connection from I– to reach I–95 and the rest of the is the owner and operator of I–395 and 395 to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Interstate System. The BGP and the city I–95 within the city of Baltimore. will remain open throughout the event. are working closely with businesses, The FHWA is responsible for In addition, access to and from I–95 into including the hotels and restaurants enforcing the Federal regulations and out of the city along alternative located within the impact area, to applicable to the National Network of access routes, including U.S. 1, U.S. 40, highways that can safely and efficiently schedule deliveries prior to the Russell Street, and Washington proposed I–395 closure to the extent accommodate the large vehicles Boulevard will be maintained. The BGP feasible. The BGP is also working with authorized by provisions of the Surface and the city are developing a signage Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 plan to inform and guide motorists to, affected businesses to schedule delivery (STAA), as amended, designated in through, and around the impacted services during the event period. accordance with 23 CFR Part 658 and downtown area. The statewide The plan is to use a credentialing listed in Appendix A. In accordance transportation operations system, the process for access through designated with 23 CFR 658.11, the FHWA may Coordinated Highways Action Response gates with access to specific loading approve deletions or restrictions of the Team, will provide real-time traffic areas. This request to temporarily close Interstate system or other National information to motorists through I–395 was prepared for the MDTA by Network route based upon specified dynamic message signs and highway the BGP and the city. In addition, the justification criteria in § 658.11(d)(2). advisory radio. The MDTA states that city has reached out to the Federal, Requests for deletions are published in the temporary closure of this segment of State, and local agencies to collaborate the Federal Register for notice and I–395 to general traffic should have no and coordinate efforts to address the comment. impact on interstate commerce. I–95, logistical challenges of hosting the BGP. the main north-south Interstate route in Notice and Request for Comment The BGP and the city have worked the region, will remain open during the extensively with the businesses and The FHWA published a Notice and time period of the event. There are five residential communities in the city that Request for Comment on June 28, 2011, additional I–95 interchanges, just to the seeking comments from the general north or south of I–395, with could be affected by the event. These public on this request submitted by the connections to the local street system efforts include the formation of Task MDTA for a deletion in accordance with including the arterials servicing the Forces and event Sub-Committees, to 23 CFR 658.11(d). The comment period city’s downtown area. A sign and guide the development of plans for closed on July 28, 2011. No public supplemental traffic control systems event security, transportation comments were received. plan is being developed as part of the management, public safety and more. The FHWA sought comments on this event’s Traffic Management Plan (TMP). Neighborhood meetings have been held request for temporary deletion from the In addition, I–695 (Baltimore Beltway) since late 2009 to discuss the event and National Network in accordance with 23 will provide motorists traveling through pertinent access issues. CFR 658.11(d). Specifically, the request the region the ability to bypass the The FHWA did not receive any is for approval of the temporary closure impact area by circling around the city. comments in response to the Notice and of I–395 just south of Conway Street in Commercial motor vehicles of the Request for Comment. After full the city of Baltimore from the period dimensions and configurations consideration of the MDTA request beginning Thursday, September 1, 2011, described in 23 CFR 658.13 and 658.15 discussed in this final notice and at approximately 7 p.m. through which serve the impacted area, may use determining that the request meets the Tuesday, September 6, 2011, at around the alternate routes listed above. 6 a.m., encompassing the Labor Day Vehicles servicing the businesses requirements of 23 CFR 658.11(d), the holiday. This closure will be undertaken bordering the impacted area will still be FHWA approves the deletion as in support of the BGP which will use able to do so by also using the proposed. the streets of downtown Baltimore as a alternative routes noted above to Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127, 315 and 49 race course. It is anticipated the BGP circulate around the restricted area. In U.S.C. 31111, 31112, and 31114; 23 CFR Part event will be hosted in the city of addition, vehicles not serving 658.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52382 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Issued on: August 15, 2011. these ICRs for which the agency is to OMB at the following address: oira- Victor M. Mendez, seeking OMB approval. 76 FR 34287. [email protected]. Administrator. FRA received no comments in response Comments are invited on the [FR Doc. 2011–21406 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] to this notice. following: Whether the proposed BILLING CODE 4910–22–P Before OMB decides whether to collection of information is necessary approve these proposed collections of for the proper performance of the information, it must provide 30 days for functions of the Department, including DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 whether the information will have CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires practical utility; the accuracy of the Federal Railroad Administration OMB to approve or disapprove Department’s estimate of the burden of [Docket No. FRA–2011–0001–N–11] paperwork packages between 30 and 60 the proposed information collection; days after the 30 day notice is ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Proposed Agency Information published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)–(c); 5 CFR clarity of the information to be Collection Activities; Comment 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, collected; and ways to minimize the Request Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 burden of the collection of information day notice informs the regulated on respondents, including the use of AGENCY: Federal Railroad community to file relevant comments automated collection techniques or Administration, (FRA), Department of and affords the agency adequate time to other forms of information technology. Transportation (DOT). digest public comments before it A comment to OMB is best assured of ACTION: Notice and Request for renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. having its full effect if OMB receives it Comments. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should within 30 days of publication of this submit their respective comments to notice in the Federal Register. SUMMARY: In compliance with the OMB within 30 days of publication of Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 this Notice to best ensure having their U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60 Issued in Washington, DC on August 16, announces that the Information FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. 2011. Collection Requirements (ICRs) The summary below describes the Kimberly Coronel, abstracted below are being forwarded to nature of the information collection Director, Office of Financial Management, the Office of Management and Budget requirements (ICRs) and the expected Federal Railroad Administration. (OMB) for review and comment. The burden being submitted for clearance by [FR Doc. 2011–21298 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] ICRs describe the nature of the OMB as required by the PRA. BILLING CODE 4910–06–P information collections and their Title: Locomotive Safety Standards expected burden. The Federal Register and Event Recorders. notice with a 60-day comment period OMB Control Number: 2130–0004. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION soliciting comments on the following Type of Request: Extension without collections of information was change of a currently approved Maritime Administration published on June 13, 2011 (76 FR collection. 34287). Affected Public: Businesses. Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Abstract: The Locomotive Inspection Requirements; Agency Information DATES: Comments must be submitted on requires railroads to inspect, repair, and Collection Activity under OMB Review or before September 21, 2011. maintain locomotives and event AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. recorders so that they are safe, free of Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, defects, and can be placed in service ACTION: Notice and request for Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS– without peril to life. Crashworthy comments. 21, Federal Railroad Administration, locomotive event recorders provide FRA 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 3rd Floor, SUMMARY: In compliance with the with verifiable factual information about Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, how trains are maintained and operated, (telephone: (202) 493–6292), or Ms. U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice and are used by FRA and State announces that the Information Kimberly Toone, Office of Information inspectors for Part 229 rule Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad Collection abstracted below has been enforcement. The information garnered forwarded to the Office of Management Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., from crashworthy event recorders is also SE., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop 35, and Budget (OMB) for review and used by railroads to monitor railroad approval. The nature of the information Washington, DC 20590, (telephone: operations and by railroad employees (202) 493–6132). (These telephone collection is described as well as its (locomotive engineers, train crews, expected burden. The Federal Register numbers are not toll-free.) dispatchers) to improve train handling, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Notice with a 60-day comment period and promote the safe and efficient soliciting comments on the following Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 operation of trains throughout the (PRA), Public Law 104–13, Section 2, collection of information was published country, based on a surer knowledge of on May 27, 2011, and comments were 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised different control inputs. at 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its due by July 26, 2011. No comments Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.49A. were received. implementing regulations, 5 CFR part Total Annual Estimated Burden 1320, require Federal agencies to issue Hours: 863,951 hours. DATES: Comments must be submitted on two notices seeking public comment on Addressee: Send comments regarding or before September 23, 2011. information collection activities before this information collection to the Office FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OMB may approve paperwork packages. of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Daniel Ladd, Maritime Administration, 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, Office of Management and Budget, 725 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On June 13, 2011, Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: FRA published a 60-day notice in the DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. 202–366–1859; or E-mail: Federal Register soliciting comment on Comments may also be sent via e-mail [email protected]. Copies of this

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52383

collection also can be obtained from that DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION business, labor union, etc.). You may office. review DOT’s complete Privacy Act National Highway Traffic Safety Statement in the Federal Register SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime Administration published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR Administration (MARAD). [U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2011– 19477–78) or you may visit http:// Title: Title XI Obligation Guarantees. 0126] www.dot.gov/privacy.html. OMB Control Number: 2133–0018. Docket: For access to the docket to Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping read background documents or Type of Request: Extension of Requirements comments received, go to http:// currently approved collection. www.regulations.gov, or the street Affected Public: Individuals/ AGENCY: National Highway Traffic address listed above. Follow the online businesses interested in obtaining loan Safety Administration (NHTSA), instructions for accessing the dockets. Department of Transportation. guarantees for construction or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kil- reconstruction of vessels as well as ACTION: Request for public comment on Jae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey businesses interested in shipyard proposed collection of information. Avenue SE., W52–232, NPO–520, modernization and improvements. SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong’s Forms: MA–163, MA–163A. collect certain information from the telephone number is (202) 493–0524 public, it must receive approval from and e-mail address is kil- Abstract: In accordance with the [email protected]. Merchant Marine Act, 1936, MARAD is the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established authorized to execute a full faith and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the by the Paperwork Reduction Act of credit guarantee by the United States of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 1995, before seeking OMB approval, debt obligations issued to finance or before an agency submits a proposed Federal agencies must solicit public collection of information to OMB for refinance the construction or comment on proposed collections of approval, it must first publish a reconstruction of vessels. In addition, information, including extensions and document in the Federal Register the program allows for financing reinstatement of previously approved providing a 60-day comment period and shipyard modernization and collections. otherwise consult with members of the improvement projects. This document describes one public and affected agencies concerning Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 700 collection of information for which each proposed collection of information. hours. NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. The OMB has promulgated regulations Addressees: Send comments to the DATES: Comments must be received on describing what must be included in Office of Information and Regulatory or before October 21, 2011. such a document. Under OMB’s Affairs, Office of Management and ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, regulation (at 5CFR 1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., identified by the docket number in the following: Washington, DC 20503, Attention heading of this document, by any of the (i) Whether the proposed collection of MARAD Desk Officer. following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to information is necessary for the proper Comments Are Invited on: Whether http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the performance of the functions of the the proposed collection of information instructions for submitting comments agency, including whether the is necessary for the proper performance on the electronic docket site by clicking information will have practical utility; of the functions of the agency, including on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ (ii) The accuracy of the agency’s whether the information will have • Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey estimate of the burden of the proposed practical utility; the accuracy of the Avenue SE., West Building Ground collection of information, including the agency’s estimate of the burden of the Floor, Room W12–140, between 9 a.m. validity of the methodology and proposed information collection; ways and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday assumptions used; to enhance the quality, utility and through Friday, except Federal holidays. (iii) How to enhance the quality, • clarity of the information to be Fax: 202–493–2251. utility, and clarity of the information to collected; and ways to minimize the Regardless of how you submit be collected; burden of the collection of information comments, you should mention the (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those on respondents, including the use of docket number of this document. You may call the Docket Management who are to respond, including the use automated collection techniques or Facility at 202–366–9826. of appropriate automated, electronic, other forms of information technology. Instructions: For detailed instructions mechanical, or other technological A comment to OMB is best assured of on submitting comments and additional collection techniques or other forms of having its full effect if OMB receives it information on the rulemaking process, information technology, e.g. permitting within 30 days of publication. see the Public Participation heading of electronic submission of responses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Dated: August 16, 2011. the section In compliance with these of this document. Note that all requirements, NHTSA asks for public By Order of the Maritime Administration. comments received will be posted comments on the following proposed Julie Agarwal, without change to http:// collection of information for which the Secretary, Maritime Administration. www.regulations.gov, including any agency is seeking approval from OMB: [FR Doc. 2011–21325 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] personal information provided. Title: 49 CFR 575—Consumer BILLING CODE 4910–81–P Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search Information Regulations (sections 103 the electronic form of all comments and 105) Quantitative Research. received into any of our dockets by the OMB Control Number: Not Assigned. name of the individual submitting the Form Number: None. comment (or signing the comment, if Affected Public: Passenger vehicle submitted on behalf of an association, consumers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52384 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices

Requested Expiration Date of Based on the Bureau of Labor and STB RAILROAD INFLATION-ADJUSTED Approval: Three years from approval Statistics’ median hourly wage (all INDEX AND DEFLATOR FACTOR TABLE date. occupations) in the May 2010 National Abstract: The Energy Independence Occupational Employment and Wage Year Index Deflator and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Estimates, NHTSA estimates that it will enacted in December 2007, included a take an average of $16.27 per hour for 1991 ...... 409.50 1 100.00 requirement that the National Highway professional and clerical staff to gather 1992 ...... 411.80 99.45 Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data, develop and distribute material. 1993 ...... 415.50 98.55 1994 ...... 418.80 97.70 develop a consumer information and Therefore, the agency estimates that the education campaign to improve 1995 ...... 418.17 97.85 cost associated with the burden hours is 1996 ...... 417.46 98.02 consumer understanding of automobile $21,693.28 ($16.27 per hour × 1,333.33 1997 ...... 419.67 97.50 performance with regard to fuel burden hours). 1998 ...... 424.54 96.38 economy, Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Comments are invited on: Whether 1999 ...... 423.01 96.72 emissions and other pollutant the proposed collection of information 2000 ...... 428.64 95.45 emissions; of automobile use of 2001 ...... 436.48 93.73 is necessary for the proper performance alternative fuels; and of thermal 2002 ...... 445.03 91.92 of the functions of the Department, management technologies used on 2003 ...... 454.33 90.03 automobiles to save fuel. In order to including whether the information will 2004 ...... 473.41 86.40 effectively achieve the objectives of the have practical utility; the accuracy of 2005 ...... 522.41 78.29 consumer education program and fulfill the Department’s estimate of the burden 2006 ...... 567.34 72.09 of the proposed information collection; 2007 ...... 588.30 69.52 its statutory obligations, NHTSA 2008 ...... 656.78 62.28 proposes a multi-phased research ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 2009 ...... 619.73 66.00 project to gather the data and apply 2010 ...... 652.29 62.71 analyses and results from the project to collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information develop the consumer information DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2010. program and education campaign. on respondents, including the use of NHTSA has conducted qualitative automated collection techniques or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: research and is now requesting to other forms of information technology. Scott Decker 202–245–0330. [Federal conduct follow-up quantitative research Issued on: August 17, 2011. Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.] with consumers to assess current levels Gregory A. Walter, of knowledge surrounding these issues, Senior Associate Administrator, Policy and By the Board, William F. Huneke, Director, explore current available fuel economy- Operations. Office of Economics. related content for clarity and [FR Doc. 2011–21399 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] Jeffrey Herzig, understanding, evaluate potential Clearance Clerk. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P consumer-facing messages and their [FR Doc. 2011–21276 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] potential to encourage consumers to BILLING CODE 4915–01–P seek more fuel economy-related DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION information from NHTSA, and explore communications channels in which Surface Transportation Board these messages should be present. The DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY research will allow NHTSA to refine the Indexing the Annual Operating Office of Foreign Assets Control fuel economy-related content and Revenues of Railroads consumer-facing messaging that will be Designation of Additional Entities used throughout the consumer The Surface Transportation Board Pursuant to Executive Order 13405 education campaign by identifying what (STB) is publishing the annual inflation- relevant issues consumers care more adjusted index factors for 2010. These ACTION: Notice. about and what information they still factors are used by the railroads to need to make more informed purchase adjust their gross annual operating SUMMARY: The Treasury Department’s and driver behavior decisions. revenues for classification purposes. Office of Foreign Assets Control Estimated Annual Burden: 1,333.33 This indexing methodology insures that (‘‘OFAC’’) is publishing the names of hours. railroads are classified based on real four newly-designated entities whose Number of Respondents: 4,000. business expansion and not from the property and interests in property are NHTSA proposed to conduct two affects of inflation. Classification is blocked pursuant to Executive Order research phases. For the first phase, important because it determines the 13405 of June 16, 2006, ‘‘Blocking NHTSA conducted one type of extent to which individual railroads Property of Certain Persons qualitative research consisting of two (2) must comply with STB reporting Undermining Democratic Processes or focus groups in each of four (4) cities. requirements. Institutions in Belarus.’’ The results of that research phase were DATES: The designation by the Director used to inform the quantitative phase of The STB’s annual inflation-adjusted factors are based on the annual average of OFAC of the four entities identified research which this notice addresses. in this notice, pursuant to Executive This quantitative research will consist Railroad’s Freight Price Index which is developed by the Bureau of Labor of an online survey that will require 1 approximately 20 minutes for each Statistics (BLS). The STB’s deflator Ex Parte No. 492, Montana Rail Link, Inc., and factor is used to deflate revenues for Wisconsin Central Ltd., Joint Petition For respondent to complete, and will Rulemaking With Respect To 49 CFR 1201, 8 I.C.C. require 4,000 participants. NHTSA comparison with established revenue 2d 625 (1992), raised the revenue classification plans to administer this study one time. thresholds. level for Class I railroads from $50 million (1978 dollars) to $250 million (1991 dollars), effective for The estimated annual burden hour for The base year for railroads is 1991. the reporting year beginning January 1, 1992. The the second phase of research is 1,333.33 The inflation index factors are presented Class II threshold was also raised from $10 million hours (20 minutes × 4,000 participants). as follows: (1978 dollars) to $20 million (1991 dollars).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Notices 52385

Order 13405, is effective August 11, interests in property, that are in, or OBYEDINENYE AZOT; f.k.a. RUP 2011. hereafter come within, the United States GRODNENSKOYE PO AZOT; f.k.a. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: or the possession or control of United RUP GPO AZOT), 100 Kosmonavtov Assistant Director, Compliance States persons for persons listed in the Avenue, 230013, Grodno, Belarus; 100 Outreach & Implementation, Office of Annex and those persons determined by Kosmonavtov pr., 230013, Grodno, Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Secretary of the Treasury, after Belarus; Prospekt Kosmanovtov 100, the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, consultation with the Secretary of State, 230013, Grodno, Belarus; [BELARUS] Tel.: 202/622–2490. to satisfy any of the criteria set forth in subparagraphs (a)(ii)(A) through 3. GRODNO KHIMVOLOKNO OAO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (a)(ii)(E) of Section 1. (a.k.a. JSC GRODNO Electronic and Facsimile Availability On August 11, 2011, the Director of KHIMVOLOKNO; a.k.a. GRODNO KHIMVOLOKNO JSC; a.k.a. GRODNO This document and additional OFAC, in consultation with the information concerning OFAC are Secretary of State, designated, pursuant CHEMICAL FIBRE OJSC), 4 available from OFAC’s Web site to one or more of the criteria set forth Slavinskogo Street, 230026, Grodno, (http://www.treasury.gov/ofac) or via in Section 1, subparagraphs (a)(ii)(A) Belarus; ulitsa Slavinskogo 4, 230026, facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on- through (a)(ii)(E) of the Order, the Grodno, Belarus; str. Slavinskogo 4, demand service, Tel.: 202/622–0077. following four entities, whose names 230026, Grodno, Belarus; [BELARUS] have been added to the list of Specially 4. NAFTAN OAO (a.k.a. NAFTAN Background Designated Nationals and whose OJSC; a.k.a. NAFTAN; f.k.a. NAFTAN On June 16, 2006, the President property and interests in property are blocked, pursuant to Executive Order PROIZVODSTVENNOYE issued Executive Order 13405 (the OBYEDINENYE; f.k.a. NAFTAN ‘‘Order’’) pursuant to, inter alia, the 13405: PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION), International Emergency Economic 1. BELSHINA OAO (a.k.a. BELSHINA Industrial Area, Novopolotsk-1, Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–06). In the OJSC; a.k.a. BELSHINA TYRE Order, the President declared a national WORKS OAO; a.k.a. JSC BELSHINA; 211440, Vitebsk Region, Belarus; emergency to address political f.k.a. RUP BELORUSSKY SHINNY Novopolotsk, 21140, Vitebsk region, repression, electoral fraud, and public KOMBINAT BELSHINA), Minsk Belarus; Novopolotsk, 211440, corruption in Belarus. The Order Highway Bobruisk, 213824, Mogilev Vitebskaya Oblast, Belarus; imposes economic sanctions on persons Region, Belarus; Minskoye schosse [BELARUS] responsible for actions or policies that Bobruisk 213824, Mogilevskaya Dated: August 11, 2011. undermine democratic processes or oblast, Belarus; Minsk Highway, Adam J. Szubin, institutions in Belarus. The President Bobruisk, Mogilev region, Belarus; identified ten individuals as subject to [BELARUS] Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. the economic sanctions in the Annex to 2. GRODNO AZOT OAO (a.k.a. [FR Doc. 2011–21376 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] the Order. GRODNO AZOT; f.k.a. GPO AZOT BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P Section 1 of the Order blocks, with OJSC; f.k.a. GRODNESKOYE certain exceptions, all property, and PROZVODSTVENNOYE

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM 22AUN1 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Vol. 76 Monday, No. 162 August 22, 2011

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 52 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52388 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION documents in the docket are listed in addressed by establishing emissions AGENCY the Federal eRulemaking portal index at limits representing Best Available http://www.regulations.gov and are Retrofit Technology (BART) for nitrogen 40 CFR Part 52 available either electronically at http:// oxide (NOx) pollution at the San Juan EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846; www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Generating Station power plant. FRL–9451–1 EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, The federal plan will require the San TX 75202–2733. To inspect the hard Juan Generating Station to cut emissions Approval and Promulgation of copy materials, please schedule an to improve scenic views at 16 of our Implementation Plans; New Mexico; appointment during normal business most treasured parks including the Federal Implementation Plan for hours with the contact listed in the FOR Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde and Interstate Transport of Pollution FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Bandelier National Monument. Affecting Visibility and Best Available A reasonable fee may be charged for Pollution from this power plant impacts Retrofit Technology Determination copies. four states including Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Improved FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: Environmental Protection Joe air quality also results in public health Agency (EPA). Kordzi, EPA Region 6, (214) 665–7186, benefits. ACTION: Final rule. [email protected]. Public Service Company of New SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mexico (PNM) owns the San Juan SUMMARY: EPA is disapproving a portion Throughout this document wherever Generating Station power plant. The of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ ‘‘our,’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’ is power plant has four coal-fired revision received from the State of New used, we mean the EPA. Unless generating units. It is located in San Mexico on September 17, 2007, for the otherwise specified, when we say the Juan County, 15 miles west of purpose of addressing the ‘‘good ‘‘San Juan Generating Station,’’ or Farmington in northwest New Mexico. neighbor’’ requirements of section ‘‘SJGS,’’ we mean units 1, 2, 3, and 4, The thirty-year-old San Juan Generation 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act inclusive. Station power plant is one of the largest (CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone sources of NOx pollution in the United National Ambient Air Quality Standards Overview States. (NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 fine The Clean Air Act requires states to The federal plan requires the San Juan particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. In prevent air pollution from sources Generating Station coal-fired power this action, EPA is disapproving the within their borders from impairing air plant to reduce nitrogen oxide and New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP quality and visibility in other states. The sulfur dioxide pollution to 0.05 pounds provisions that address the requirement Act also requires states to reduce per million BTU and 0.15 pounds per of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that pollution from significant sources million BTU respectively. emissions from New Mexico sources do whose emissions reduce visibility in the By addressing nitrogen oxide not interfere with measures required in nation’s pristine and wilderness areas pollution requirements of both Interstate the SIP of any other state under part C (such as the Grand Canyon), and Transport and the Regional Haze Rule, of the CAA to protect visibility. We have contribute to regional haze. When a PNM will meet these two Clean Air Act found that New Mexico sources, except state has not adopted plans as required requirements for NOx emission limits the San Juan Generating Station, are by these provisions, EPA must put such for the power plant with only one round sufficiently controlled to eliminate a plan in place, known as a Federal of improvements. This regulatory interference with the visibility programs Implementation Plan (FIP). certainty will help guide PNM’s of other states. EPA is promulgating a In this action, EPA is finalizing a FIP business decisions regarding capital Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to for New Mexico to address emissions investments in pollution controls. address this deficiency by implementing from one source: the San Juan EPA evaluated reliable and proven nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur Generating Station coal-fired power pollution technologies as part of its dioxide (SO2) emission limits necessary plant. EPA is finding that the other New decision. EPA determined Selective at the San Juan Generating Station Mexico pollution sources are adequately Catalytic Reduction (SCR) to be the most (SJGS), to prevent such interference. controlled to eliminate interference with cost-effective pollution control to EPA found in January 2009 that New the clean air visibility programs of other achieve the emission reductions Mexico had failed to submit a SIP states. This FIP can be replaced by a outlined in the federal plan. Evaluation addressing certain regional haze (RH) state plan that EPA finds meets the of a less expensive alternative, Selective requirements, including the requirement applicable Clean Air Act requirements. Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), for best available retrofit technology The federal plan will remain in effect no showed that SNCR at the San Juan (BART). The Clean Air Act required longer than necessary. Generating Station coal-fired power EPA to promulgate a FIP to address RH In December 2010, EPA proposed to plant achieves far less reduction in requirements by January 2011. This FIP disapprove a portion of the New Mexico pollution and less visibility addresses the RH BART requirement for Interstate Transport State improvement, and does not fully meet NOX for SJGS. In addition, EPA is Implementation Plan (SIP), specifically the requirement of the Act for Best implementing sulfuric acid (H2SO4) the New Mexico Interference with Available Retrofit Technology (BART). hourly emission limits at the SJGS, to Visibility SIP, and proposed a source- EPA held an extended public minimize the contribution of this specific FIP to cut pollution from San comment period on this action, an open compound to visibility impairment. Juan Generating Station to address house, and a public hearing. After This action is being taken under section adverse visibility impacts. careful review of information provided 110 and part C of the CAA. The federal plan also addresses a during the public comment period, EPA DATES: This final rule is effective on: portion of EPA’s 2-year obligation under revised its calculation of the associated September 21, 2011. the Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Rule cost investment from $229 million to ADDRESSES: EPA has established a to implement a federal plan when the $345 million. Also, in consideration of docket for this action under Docket ID state failed to meet the January 2009 comments about the time to comply No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846. All deadline. This shortfall is being with the new emissions limits, EPA

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52389

extended the time for compliance with disapprove a portion of the SIP revision 1, 2, 3, and 4. We noted this NOX limit the nitrogen oxide pollution emission received from the State of New Mexico is achievable by installing and operating limit from 3 years to 5 years, the on September 17, 2007, for the purpose Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). maximum period allowed by the Clean of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’ We proposed that both the NOX and Air Act. provisions of the CAA section SO2 emission limits be measured on the This investment will reduce the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility basis of a 30 day rolling average. We visibility impacts due to this facility by for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and also proposed hourly average emission ¥4 over 50% at each one of the 16 national the PM2.5 NAAQS. Having proposed to limits of 1.06 × 10 lb/MMBtu for parks and wilderness areas in the area, disapprove these provisions of the New H2SO4 and 2.0 parts per million volume and promote local tourism by Mexico SIP, we proposed a FIP to dry (ppmvd) ammonia adjusted to 6 decreasing the number of days when address the requirements of section percent oxygen, to minimize the pollution impairs scenic views. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to contribution of these compounds to Although today’s action is taken to visibility to ensure that emissions from visibility impairment. We solicited address visibility impairments, PNM sources in New Mexico do not interfere comments on a range of 2–6 ppmvd for will also reduce public health impacts with the visibility programs of other ammonia, and 1.06 × 10¥4 to 7.87 × ¥4 by cutting NOX pollution by over 80% states. We proposed to find that New 10 lb/MMBtu for H2SO4. by installing reliable pollution-control Mexico’s sources, other than the San Additionally, we proposed monitoring, technology on its four coal-fired power Juan Generating Station (SJGS), are record-keeping and reporting generation units over the next five years. sufficiently controlled to eliminate requirements to ensure compliance with EPA will review the regional haze interference with the visibility programs these emission limitations. plan that the State submitted in July of other states, and for the SJGS, we Lastly, we proposed that compliance 2011, and if there is significant new proposed specific SO2 and NOX with the emission limits must be within information that changes our analysis, emissions limits that will eliminate three (3) years of the effective date of EPA will make appropriate revisions to such interstate interference. For SO2, we our final rule. We solicited comments today’s decision. proposed to require the SJGS to meet an on alternative timeframes, up to five (5) Detailed Outline emission limit of 0.15 pounds per years from the effective date our final million British Thermal Units (lb/ rule. In our proposal, we did not I. Summary of Our Proposal MMBtu). For NOX, we proposed to address whether the state had met other II. Final Decision implement a NO emission limit of 0.05 requirements of the RH program, which A. Interstate Transport X lbs/MMBtu, based on our BART we will address in later actions. Please B. NOX BART Determination for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) determination, as discussed below. see our proposal for more details. C. Compliance Timeframe Separate from our proposal under II. Final Decision III. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Section 110 of the CAA, we Commenters simultaneously evaluated whether the A. Interstate Transport A. Comments on the Costs of the NOX SJGS met certain other related We are disapproving the portion of BART Determination requirements under the Regional Haze the SIP revision received from the State B. Comments on our Proposed NOX BART Emission Limits (RH) program under Sections 169A and of New Mexico on September 17, 2007, C. Comments on our Proposed SO2 169B of the CAA. Regional Haze SIPs for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good Emission Limit were due December 17, 2007. In January neighbor’’ provisions of the CAA section D. Comments on our Proposed H2SO4 and 2009, we made a finding that New 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility Ammonia Emission Limits and Other Mexico had failed to submit a RH SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and Pollutants addressing the requirements of 40 CFR the PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2007 SIP E. Comments on the Emission Limit 51.309(d)(4) and (g). 74 FR 2392 submission by New Mexico anticipated Compliance Schedule (January 15, 2009). Under the CAA, we F. Comments on the Conversion of the that the State would submit a SJGS to a Coal-to-Liquids Plant With are required to promulgate a FIP within substantive RH SIP to meet the Carbon Capture as a Means of Satisfying two years of the effective date of a requirements of section BART finding that a State has failed to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). G. Comments on Health and Ecosystem a SIP unless the State submits a SIP and Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA Benefits, and Other Pollutants we approve that SIP within the two year requires that states have a SIP, or submit H. Miscellaneous Comments period. CAA § 110(c). At the time of the a SIP revision, containing provisions I. Comments in Favor of Our Proposal proposed FIP, New Mexico had not yet ‘‘prohibiting any source or other type of J. Comments Arguing Our Proposal Would submitted a substantive RH SIP emission activity within the state from Hurt the Economy and/or Raise Electricity Rates addressing, among other things, the emitting any air pollutant in amounts K. Comments Arguing Our Proposal Would requirement that certain stationary which will * * * interfere with Help the Economy sources install BART for NOX. (On July measures required to be included in the L. Comments Requesting an Extension to 5, 2011, New Mexico submitted a RH applicable implementation plan for any the Public Comment Period SIP, which we discuss later in this other State under part C [of the CAA] to M. Comments Requesting We Defer Action Notice.) Based on our evaluation of the protect visibility.’’ States were required in Favor of a New Mexico SIP Submittal RH BART requirements of section 40 to submit a SIP by December 2007 with N. Comments Generally Against Our CFR 51.309(d)(4), we proposed to find measures to address regional haze— Proposal O. Comments on Legal Issues that the SJGS is subject to BART under visibility impairment that is caused by P. Modeling Comments section 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), and/or the emissions of air pollutants from IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 51.308(e). We proposed a FIP which numerous sources located over a wide contained NOX BART limits for the geographic area. Under the RH program, I. Summary of Our Proposal SJGS based on our proposed NOX BART each State with a Class I area must On January 5, 2011, we published the determination. We proposed to require submit a SIP with reasonable progress proposal on which we are now taking that the SJGS meet a NOX emission limit goals for each such area that provides final action. 76 FR 491. We proposed to of 0.05 lb/MMBtu individually at Units for an improvement in visibility for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52390 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

most impaired days and ensures no find that New Mexico sources, other We did receive a New Mexico RH SIP degradation of the best days. (The than the SJGS, are sufficiently submittal on July 5, 2011, but it came ‘‘Class I’’ federal areas 1 affected by the controlled to eliminate interference with several years after the statutory SJGS include 16 of our most treasured the visibility programs of other states deadline, and after the close of the parks, such as the Grand Canyon, Mesa because the federally enforceable comment period on today’s action.3 In Verde, and Bandelier National emission limits for these sources are addition, because of the missed Monument. Emissions from this power consistent with those relied upon in the deadline for the visibility transport, we plant impact four states including WRAP modeling. The SO2 and NOX are under a court-supervised consent Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New emissions relied upon in the WRAP decree deadline with WildEarth Mexico.) modeling for the SJGS, however, are not Guardians of August 5, 2011, to have Because of the often significant federally enforceable. Therefore, we are either approved the New Mexico SIP or impacts on visibility from the interstate establishing federally enforceable SO2 to have implemented a FIP to address transport of pollutants, we interpret the emissions limits that will address these the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provision. It would ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of section discrepancies and eliminate interstate not have been possible to review the 110 of the CAA described above as interference based on current emissions July 5, 2011 SIP submission, propose a requiring states to include in their SIPs that satisfy the assumptions in the rulemaking, and promulgate a final measures to prohibit emissions that WRAP modeling. We are finalizing our action by the dates required by the would interfere with the reasonable proposal to require the SJGS to meet an consent decree. Notwithstanding these progress goals set to protect Class I areas SO2 emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, facts, we did comment during the in other states. This is consistent with the rate assumed in the WRAP State’s public comment period for their the requirements in the RH program modeling. We proposed a 30 day rolling proposed RH SIP in May 2011 and we which explicitly require each State to average for units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the did evaluate the technology advocated address its share of the emission SJGS. However, in response to a as BART in the State’s proposed RH SIP: reductions needed to meet the comment we received, we are changing SNCR, as discussed in further detail reasonable progress goals for our proposed averaging period for these elsewhere in this Notice. surrounding Class I areas. 64 FR 35714, emission limits from a straight 30 day B. NOx BART Determination for the San 35735 (July 1, 1999). States working calendar average to one calculated on Juan Generating Station (SJGS) together through a regional planning the basis of a Boiler Operating Day process are required to address an (BOD). We find that the SJGS is subject to agreed upon share of their contribution Besides not being federally BART under sections 40 CFR to visibility impairment in the Class I enforceable, the NOx emissions that 51.309(d)(4), and/or 51.308(e). In this areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR were assumed in the WRAP modeling action, we are adopting a FIP that 51.308(d)(3)(ii). cannot be achieved without additional partially addresses the BART The States in the West, including New NOx controls for the SJGS to prevent requirements of the RH program for Mexico, worked through a regional interference with visibility pursuant to New Mexico. We are finalizing our planning organization, the Western the requirements of section proposal to require the SJGS to meet a Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. We are NOx emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu develop strategies to address regional choosing, however, not to use the individually at Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. As haze. To help the State in establishing WRAP assumptions to make a we discuss elsewhere in our response to reasonable progress goals, the WRAP determination on the enforceable NOx comments, we find there is ample modeled future visibility conditions. controls necessary to prevent visibility support for this decision. However, in The WRAP modeling assumed interference, as we are doing for the SO2 response to a comment we received, we emissions reductions from each State, controls. Instead, we are addressing are changing our proposed averaging based on extensive consultation among NOx control for the SJGS by fulfilling period for these emission limits from a the States as to appropriate strategies for our duty under the BART provisions of straight 30 day calendar average to one addressing haze. In setting reasonable the RH rule to promulgate a RH FIP for calculated on the basis of a boiler progress goals, States in the West New Mexico to address, among other operating day (BOD). We also received generally relied on this modeling. As elements of the visibility program, the a comment requesting we revise our explained in the notice of proposed requirement for BART.2 We do not proposed unit-by-unit NOx limitation, rulemaking, we believe that the analysis believe it is prudent to delay a NOx and replace it with a plant wide average conducted by the WRAP provides an BART determination for the SJGS, NOx limitation. As we note in our appropriate means for designing a FIP because we have determined that the response to this comment, although we that will ensure that emissions from BART requirements are more stringent are open to combining the BOD and sources in New Mexico are not than the visibility transport plant wide averaging schemes, this interfering with the visibility programs requirements. Separating the visibility presents a significant technical of other states, as contemplated in transport and BART rulemakings could challenge in having a verifiable, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). result in near-term requirements for the workable, and enforceable algorithm for As a result of our disapproval of New utility to install one set of controls and calculating such an average. Due to our Mexico’s SIP, submitted to meet the capital expenditures, to only satisfy our obligation to ensure the enforceability of requirements of section obligation under section the emission limits we are imposing in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), followed shortly our FIP, we leave it to New Mexico to visibility, we are promulgating a FIP to thereafter by different requirements for take up this matter in a future SIP ensure that emissions from New Mexico controls and capital expenditures to revision, should they deem it worth sources do not interfere with the satisfy our obligation under BART. This pursuing. We are confident this issue visibility programs of other states. We could result in unnecessary costs and confusion. 3 A State Regional Haze SIP was due under the 1 CAA 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). The list of mandatory CAA by Dec. 17, 2007, and EPA was obligated to class I federal areas where visibility is an important either approve an RH SIP or promulgate a FIP by value is codified at 40 CFR part 81 subpart D. 2 See 74 FR 2392. January 15, 2011. See CAA Section 110(c)(1)(B).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:37 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52391

can be addressed prior to the period, which ended on March 7, 2011. operator of the SJGS. The following is a installation of the emission controls We subsequently extended that combined summary of their separate required to satisfy our FIP. comment period until April 4, 2011.6 comments. We are also finalizing our proposal We also held an open house and a The NPS and the USFS cited a large requiring the SJGS to meet an H2SO4 public hearing in Farmington, NM, on ¥ number of well-documented recent emission limit of 2.6 × 10 4 lb/MMBtu February 17, 2011.7 We received in industry studies or surveys, which they to minimize its contribution to visibility excess of 13,000 comments. impairment. We are promulgating In light of the very large number of use to conclude that PNM has monitoring, record-keeping and comments received and the significant overestimated its SCR costs, expressed reporting requirements to ensure overlap between many comments, we in dollars per kilowatt. They stated that compliance with this emission limit. As have grouped some comments together. PNM has not provided valid discussed in our response to comments, We have summarized and provided information to justify their higher cost after careful consideration of the responses to each significant argument, estimates for SCR installation at the comments we received concerning our assertion, and question contained SJGS. Additionally, the USFS stated proposal to require the SJGS to meet an within the totality of the comments. Full PNM’s contractors went against our hourly average emission limit of 2.0 responses to comments can be found in guidance which recommends using the parts ppmvd for ammonia, we have our Complete Response to Comments Cost Manual to ensure a transparent and determined that neither an ammonia for NM Regional Haze/Visibility consistent means to conduct cost limit, nor ammonia monitoring is Transport FIP. analyses across the nation. The USFS warranted, and we are not finalizing A. Comments on the Costs of the NOX took issue with PNM’s estimation of ammonia limits or monitoring BART Determination indirect (soft) costs which include: requirements. engineering costs; construction and field We received many comments related C. Compliance Timeframe to various aspects of our cost analysis expenses (e.g., costs for construction We originally proposed a compliance that fell into four major categories. First, supervisory personnel, office personnel, schedule of 3 years for SJGS for the we received general comments opining rental of temporary offices, etc.); NOX, SO2, ammonia, and H2SO4 on the appropriateness of our cost contractor fees; and start-up and emission limits, and solicited comments analysis. Second, we received performance test costs. Also, the NPS on alternative timeframes of less than 3 comments that were technical and stated that B&V’s improperly escalated years and up to 5 years (the maximum related to specific line items in the cost costs and its calculations did not allowed under the statute).4 As noted analysis (e.g., additional steel, SCR consider the weakening of labor markets above, we are no longer requiring an bypass, sorbent injection, etc.). Third, that has occurred since they set up their ammonia emission limit. Also, as we received comments that expressed spreadsheets in 2007. discussed in our response to comments, general concern that the costs of the Response: We found that PNM raised we carefully considered comments controls would be passed to the SJGS’s some legitimate points about costs, and urging a longer compliance schedule customer base in the form of electricity as discussed elsewhere in this notice, due to site-specific issues such as the rate increases. Fourth, we received we have adjusted several of our cost congestion of existing equipment comments that opined on the use of the (which could slow the retrofit process), Regional Haze Rule’s (RHR) reliance on estimates upward based on those points. historical information on SCR the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost However, in large part, we agree with installation times, and our own Manual (the Cost Manual) to estimate the NPS that PNM’s estimated costs for observation of the site conditions,5 and the cost of the SCR installations. We installing SCR on the units of the SJGS we now conclude that a longer address the more significant comments are higher than justified. Please see our compliance schedule is more within these categories individually other responses to comments for more appropriate. Consequently, compliance below. details on how we have adjusted our with the NO , SO , and H SO emission cost estimates. The following table X 2 2 4 1. General Cost Comments limits will now be required within 5 illustrates our revised costs in terms of years—rather than 3 years—of the Comment: The National Park Service $/kW. These costs agree with the ranges effective date of our final rule. (This (NPS) and the U.S. Forest Service presented by the NPS and the USFS in issue is discussed in further detail in (USFS) separately presented a great deal their comments, which can be viewed in Section III.E., below.) of information in support of their our Complete Response to Comments opinions that Public Service Company for NM Regional Haze/Visibility III. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by of New Mexico’s (PNM) contractor, Transport FIP document: Commenters Black &Veatch (B&V) overestimated the Our January 5, 2011 proposal cost of installing SCR on the units of the included a 60 day public comment SJGS. PNM is a part owner and the

TABLE 1—EPA REVISED ESTIMATED COSTS OF INSTALLING SCR ON THE UNITS OF THE SJGS

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4

Proposed ($/kW) ...... $144 $155 $116 $110 Final ($/kW) ...... 211 234 179 165

4 76 FR 491, 504. for the purpose of reviewing and responding to 6 76 FR 12305. 5 See San Juan Generating Station Site Visit, 5/23/ comments. It was not an opportunity to introduce 7 76 FR 1578. 11, which is viewable in the docket. As explained additional comments, and we did not receive any in a letter, dated May 17, 2011, the visit was solely comments as a result of this visit.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52392 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

We note, that as required by the BART accepted range of expected costs for jobs will not be threatened by the Guidelines, ‘‘[i]n order to maintain and such controls.12 proposed emission reductions. improve consistency, cost estimates B&V’s SJGS costs are unusually high Response: As we discuss elsewhere in should be based on the OAQPS Control for four principal reasons: (1) Using a our response to comments, we agree that Cost Manual, [now renamed ‘‘EPA Air methodology (e.g., Allowance for Funds the cost of installing SCR on the four Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Used During Construction (AFUDC)) units of the SJGS is considerably lower Edition, EPA/452/B–02–001, January that has been disallowed under EPA’’s than PNM estimated. 2002] where possible.’’ 70 FR at 39166 Cost Manual methodology and Comment: The CAA visibility (July 6, 2005). As explained more fully specifically disallowed for SCR (see provisions, EPA’s own RH regulations, in our Complete Response to Comments discussion at footnote 28); (2) and the preambles to those rules all for NM Regional Haze/Visibility consistently using assumptions at the envision a ‘‘source-by-source’’ approach Transport FIP document, we also agree upper end of the range for key SCR to BART, which by its nature must with the USFS that owner’s costs are not components (e.g., SCR backpressure; account for site-specific challenges at an appropriate cost item to include in a stiffening design pressure); (3) including each facility. However, despite the BART cost estimate, as owners costs are costs for equipment that is not necessary significant amount of information not included in the Cost Manual. for a SCR (e.g., balanced draft provided by PNM in its original BART analysis, in subsequent exchanges with Comment: PNM and its consultants conversion, sorbent injection, SCR the New Mexico Environment estimated the cost of retrofitting SJGS bypass); and (4) using excessive Department (NMED) and EPA, and in with SCRs to be between $194 million contingencies. The BART Guidelines meetings between EPA and PNM and $261 million per unit (depending require that ‘‘documentation’’ be specifically to discuss the site-specific on the unit) with a total cost of $908 provided for ‘‘any unusual challenges at SJGS, EPA did not to take million for all four units. EPA maintains circumstances that exist for the source into account many of the most that SCRs can be purchased and that would lead to cost-effectiveness significant costs that are essential in installed for much less—between $52 estimates that would exceed that for calculating an accurate cost estimate of million and $63 million per unit for a recent retrofits.’’ 13 The B&V analysis installing SCRs at SJGS. total of about $229 million. EPA’s does not support its unusually high cost Response: We agree that a source-by- estimates of annual operating costs for estimates. source analysis is appropriate, but we the SCRs are also much lower than Further, much of the information that do not believe that B&V provided an PNM’s estimate. PNM’s analysis could have supported a claim that site acceptable analysis. First, the B&V costs indicates annual operating costs for all specific issues at SJGS result in costs were extrapolated from other facilities, four SCRs would be approximately $114 that are outside of the normal range is based on confidential information that million per year, whereas EPA expects missing. Specifically, the B&V analysis was not provided in response to our PNM to be capable of operating the lacked information such as project requests. Second, the B&V costs were SCRs for only about $28 million per schedules, general arrangement site estimated using worst-case upper year. In short, EPA believes that SCRs plans showing SCR and duct layout, bounds in lieu of making a site-specific cost $679 million less, or one quarter of requests for proposal (RFPs), vendor estimate, as discussed above. Third, the amount estimated by PNM. The proposals, and a complete description of their costs included components that commenter calls our cost estimate into existing facilities. are not required at this site, and further question, since the disparity between Instead of preparing a site-specific assumed contingency factors beyond these two estimates is large. SCR design, B&V in most circumstances those normally expected. Therefore, we Response: B&V estimated it would made a worst case, upper bound believe, with the exception of certain cost between $446/kW and $559/kW to assumption that, taken together, result issues related to site congestion that are retrofit SCR on the SJGS units. Five in overall costs that are significantly addressed separately in other industry studies conducted between outside of the normal range for SCR. comments, site-specific conditions were 2002 and 2007 have reported the However, B&V provided no record properly considered. installed unit capital cost of SCRs to be support for their decision to choose the Comment: To justify the approach $79/kW to $316/kW, where the upper upper end of the range for nearly every based entirely on the median of end of the range is for very complex aspect of the cost of SCRs. It is unlikely different control technologies, EPA retrofits that are severely site that so many upper bound assumptions downplays the complicated process of constrained.8 Others have noted the could be justified, and if B&V believed designing and constructing an SCR, anomalously high costs reported for that they were justified, they should thereby not only ignoring the SJGS.910 We revised our cost estimates have explored that proposition in a risk technology itself, but also the site based on some comments highlighted in analysis. Therefore, we believe that our specific-factors that must be considered comments, but even with those changes, approach to considering site specific at SJGS. SCRs at SJGS would have to be our revised costs for SCR are from $165/ conditions that would lead to costs constructed so that each SCR can be kW to $234/kW,11 still well within the outside of the normal range, is justified. positioned at the proper point in the Comment: Private citizens submitted flue gas stream, which will significantly 8 Revised BART Cost Effectiveness Analysis for comments that the costs to PNM will be, complicate the foundation and supports Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Public Service alternatively, $250, $500, or $750 that will be needed, resulting in Company of New Mexico San Juan Generating additional costs of $35,630,000 that EPA Station, November 2010, pp. 28–29. million dollars, and that PNM’s 9 Comments submitted by United States estimates are overstated, and that any failed to recognize or consider. Department of Interior, National Park Service, dated investment in the plant is an investment Response: All SCRs have to be 3/31/11. in the future, and that the plant and its constructed so that each SCR can be 10 New Mexico Environment Department, positioned at the proper point in the Appendix A, NMED, Air Quality Bureau, BART flue gas stream, with proper foundation Determination, Public Service Company of New 12 Please see our Complete Response to Mexico, San Juan Generating Station, Units 1–4, 6/ Comments for NM Regional Haze/Visibility and supports; this is not unique to the 21/10. Transport FIP document. SJGS. Over 300 retrofit SCRs have been 11 See Exhibit 1, RTC Revised Cost Analysis. 13 70 FR at 39168 (July 6, 2005). installed since the early 1990s in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52393

United States. Accordingly, unit discounts were not assumed in our of other technologies before fully constructability issues are well revised cost analysis. It is well assessing their relative cost- understood. Standard design and established that economies arise from effectiveness and other factors construction management methods have constructing multiple units at a single mandated by section 169A(g)(2) of the been developed from these 300+ site. Economies will arise, for example, CAA. EPA’s analytical approach is in existing installations.14 This experience from common equipment that would conflict with its own BART rules and is would inform the design and serve all four units, such as the inconsistent with a logical approach to construction of the SJGS SCR, resulting ammonia injection system and the assessing relative cost-effectiveness of in significant economies compared to control system. Economies arise from various technology options. the estimates presented by B&V based shop and material discounts based on Response: We disagree with this on a very rough preliminary design that quantity. Our cost analysis, however, commenter’s characterization of our has not been optimized for did not assume any discount for analysis. As discussed in our proposal constructability. The record does not multiple unit discounts. Regardless, for (76 FR 491), once we established that identify any unusual site-specific other reasons as stated elsewhere in our units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS were conditions that would result in direct response to comments, we are finalizing subject to BART, we conducted a full installation costs for SJGS that are a schedule which calls for compliance five factor BART analysis (40 CFR substantially higher than upper bound with the emission limits within 5 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)), rather than relying direct installation costs reported by years—rather than 3 years—of the on the WRAP modeling. In conducting other SCR design firms for similarly effective date of our final rule. the BART analysis, we identified all complex sites. In fact, B&V has provided Comment: The proposed FIP costs do available retrofit control technologies, no support in the record for its not acknowledge, or take into account, including Selective Non Catalytic assumptions. Finally, the design costs the $330 million incurred in the past Reduction (SNCR), considering the are not a direct installation cost, but five years implementing a technology available, the costs of rather indirect costs discussed comprehensive emission control plan at compliance, the energy and non-air elsewhere in our response to comments. SJGS. EPA’s proposed BART quality environmental impacts of Comment: EPA suggests that the determination for the SJGS is too compliance, any pollution control engineering needed to design four SCRs expensive and EPA should accept the equipment in use at the source, the can be completed all at the same time, recently installed pollution control remaining useful life of the source, and thus saving time and money. While equipment at the SJGS as BART. the degree of improvement in visibility Response: We did, as part of our NOX which may reasonably be anticipated to some economies may arise with a BART evaluation, consider the controls result from the use of such technology. multiple SCR installation, as lessons previously installed by PNM as a result In so doing, we did assess other NO learned in designing and installing one X of its March 10, 2005 consent decree control technologies.17 SCR are applied to the next, a three-year with the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Comment: Several commenters stated deadline would require PNM to design Club, and NMED. These controls EPA should follow its own promulgated all four SCRs at the same time. included the installation of low-NOX RHR and follow New Mexico’s Designing all four SCRs at once would burners with overfire air ports, a neural recommendation for BART require four separate design and network system, and a pulse jet fabric determinations These commenters are construction teams, which would filter. However, when making the NOX referring to the proposal that was sent eliminate the opportunity to apply any BART determination, we are obligated to New Mexico’s Environmental experience gained. As a result, the costs by the RHR to examine additional Improvement Board on February 11, associated with designing the SCRs will retrofit technologies.16 In so doing, we 2011 (later formally submitted to EPA be much higher on a shorter timeframe, have determined that SCR is cost on July 5, 2011). The proposed revision not lower as EPA appears to suggest. effective and results in significant to the SIP finds that BART for SJGS is The short, three-year deadline also visibility improvements at a number of SNCR—not SCR. One commenter allows no time for additional design Class I areas, over and above the believed that the application of the 2005 work that may be needed to address existing pollution controls currently BART Guidelines supports a NOX unforeseen engineering challenges that installed. emission rate for the SJGS of between are likely to arise at each unit. Comment: EPA proposes to conclude 0.23 to 0.39 lb/MMBtu, as opposed to Response: We disagree with this that, because the SJGS currently is our proposed FIP of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, comment and believe it subject to a federally enforceable permit which requires costly SCR technology. mischaracterizes our analysis. In our limit of 0.30 lb/MMBtu for NOX, which One commenter stated the presumptive proposal, we simply noted that is less restrictive than the WRAP limits should be required ‘‘unless you ‘‘multiple unit discounts may apply to modeling’s assumed NOX rates for those [the BART-determining authority] much of this equipment.’’ 15 Multiple units (as characterized by EPA), determine that an alternative control additional NOX emission controls are level is justified based on consideration 14 J.A. Hines and others, Design for required. EPA, however, proposes on of the statutory factors.’’ 70 FR at 39171. Constructability—A Method for Reducing SCR this basis to determine that the BART Project Costs, Mega, 2001, available at: http:// Except for cyclone boilers (which are www.babcock.com/library/pdf/br-1720.pdf; see also emission limit for units 1 through 4 at not present at SJGS), this commenter Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), White SJGS is not 0.27 (or 0.28) lb/MMBtu but noted, our presumptive NOX BART Paper, Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Control is instead 0.05 lb/MMBtu based on the limits are not based on application of of NOX Emissions from Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric application of SCR technology. As a SCR; as noted above, they are instead Power Plants, May 2009, EPA–R09–OAR–2009– 0598–0032 and Walter Nischt and others, Update of result, EPA discontinues its evaluation based on the use of combustion Selective Catalytic Reduction Retrofit on a 675 MW controls. Further, EPA determined that Boiler at AES Somerset, ASME International Joint Company of New Mexico San Juan Generating when current combustion control Power Generation Conference, July 24–25, 2000, Station, November 2010, p. 5. technology would be insufficient to available at: http://www.babcock.com/library/pdf/ 16 ‘‘You are expected to identify potentially br-1703.pdf. applicable retrofit control technologies that meet the presumptive limits, it would 15 Revised BART Cost Effectiveness Analysis for represent the full range of demonstrated Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Public Service alternatives.’’ 70 FR at 39164. 17 76 FR at 499.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52394 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

be appropriate to ‘‘consider whether that NOX BART for the SJGS should be it represents a broad consideration of advanced combustion control SNCR and an emission rate of 0.23 lb/ technical, economic, energy, and technologies such as rotating opposed MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. We environmental (including visibility fire air should be used to meet these will review the State RH SIP submittal, improvement) factors. The NPS notes [presumptive] limits.’’ Id. at 39172. and if there is significant new that one of the options suggested by the Another commenter asserted that a information that changes our analysis, BART Guidelines to evaluate cost- proper BART assessment would take the we will make appropriate revisions to effectiveness is $/deciview. The NPS presumptive limits into account by today’s decision. However, the State RH believes that visibility improvement beginning with the assumption that the SIP recommends SNCR as BART, and must be a critical factor in any program established presumptive limit for these we have considered that technology in designed to improve visibility. The NPS units is appropriate, and then would the context of responding to other goes on to provide several examples of proceed with an analysis of whether the comments in this notice. For the reasons $/deciview calculations. least stringent control options could discussed in our proposal (76 FR 491), Two other comments recommend we achieve that limit. A five-factor BART and in other responses to comments, we employ the $/deciview metric. One analysis of increasingly stringent control have concluded that BART for the SJGS commenter states EPA has not options could then properly assess is an emission limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu, appropriately considered the costs of incremental costs (and cost- based on a 30 BOD average, more compliance for any proposed BART for effectiveness) and any benefits of stringent than the levels achievable by the SJGS because it relies on a $/ton requiring more stringent controls. the SNCR technology recommended by metric. The commenter maintains that Response: We note the RHR states: the State. cost should be related to the amount of Comment: To meet a three-year For each source subject to BART, 40 CFR visibility improvement that it is deadline, PNM would have to 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that States projected to achieve and proposes the prefabricate as much of the SCRs as identify the level of control representing $/dv as the means for making a rational BART after considering the factors set out in possible. In addition, a three-year deadline would also require significant comparison of the relative cost- CAA section 169A(g), as follows: effectiveness of control measures. States must identify the best system of overtime hours, expedited material continuous emission control technology for costs, double ‘‘heavy long-lift’’ crane This commenter also states that a each source subject to BART taking into costs, and a larger construction method that aggregates projected account the technology available, the costs of workforce overall. Because these costs visibility improvement in each affected compliance, the energy and non-air quality would never be incurred in the normal class I area is not appropriate for several environmental impacts of compliance, any course of installing SCRs, PNM did not reasons. That approach masks the fact pollution control equipment in use at the include these costs in its analysis, but that it is cumulative over time and space source, the remaining useful life of the and does not represent actual change at source, and the degree of visibility they would be unavoidable in the event improvement that may be expected from a three-year deadline is required. Such any one class I area. That approach also available control technology.18 a short construction deadline would ensures an artificially low measure of also exacerbate the shortage of skilled cost-effectiveness simply by allowing The RHR also states: labor caused by the significant number the control cost to be divided by a larger States, as a general matter, must require of similar projects that are either value. The commenter suggests that a owners and operators of greater than 750 MW ongoing or planned for the near future $/dv metric expressed as a range of the power plants to meet these BART emission in the region. The failure to account for values for each affected class I area limits. We are establishing these the additional labor costs associated would be an appropriate means for requirements based on the consideration of certain factors discussed below. Although we with such a short timeframe, comparing cost-effectiveness of different believe that these requirements are extremely particularly given other factors affecting controls. The commenter states that likely to be appropriate for all greater than the market for skilled labor, renders EPA’s current measure of cost- 750 MW power plants subject to BART, a both the three-year deadline and the effectiveness in terms of $/ton is State may establish different requirements if cost estimate prepared by EPA virtually meaningless in the context of the State can demonstrate that an alternative unrealistic. the RH program. Thus, EPA’s determination is justified based on a Response: The information in the assessment of the $/ton costs of BART consideration of the five statutory factors.19 record does not demonstrate a shortage candidates for the SJGS is flawed We followed the five statutory factors of labor necessary to complete the because the premise for its use is faulty, when assessing NOX BART at the SJGS, installation of SCRs at the SJGS. i.e., a change in emissions is not a in determining that a different level of However, as stated elsewhere in our suitable surrogate to represent a change BART control was warranted.20 This response to comments, we have in visibility. analysis included an examination of modified the schedule for compliance Another commenter believes that a whether other technologies should be with the emission limits to now require dollar per deciview of visibility BART for the SJGS. We also performed compliance within 5 years—rather than improvement metric would be more in our BART evaluation on the basis of 3 years—from the effective date of our line with the overall goal of the RH final rule. We believe this compliance increasingly stringent levels of control program, namely to improve visibility in schedule will provide adequate time to and assessed incremental costs and cost national parks and wilderness areas. To schedule the necessary labor resources effectiveness. Thus, we do not believe properly gauge cost-effectiveness, EPA for the installation of controls at the we improperly truncated the NOX BART must consider the fact that installing SJGS. assessment for the SJGS. SCRs at San Juan will cost between $78 Comment: The NPS recommends that We received a New Mexico RH SIP on million and $336 million per deciview, in addition to the $/ton metric, we July 5, 2011. This SIP does contain a depending on the Class I area. revised BART analysis that concludes evaluate the visibility metric $/deciview as an additional tool to report the Response: The BART Guidelines 18 70 FR at 39158. benefits of emissions controls. The NPS require that cost effectiveness be 19 70 FR at 39131. contends that BART is not necessarily calculated in terms of annualized 20 76 FR 491, 499. the most cost-effective solution. Instead, dollars per ton of pollutant removed, or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52395

$/ton.21 The commenters are correct in • Balanced draft conversion. This comment advocates attributing that the BART Guidelines list the $/ • Contingencies. 100% of the cost of the auxiliary power deciview ratio as an additional cost • Operating Labor. system upgrade, recognized after the effectiveness measure that can be • Reagent. fact, to the last project to be employed along with $/ton for use in a • Auxiliary power demand. implemented, the SCR. We did not BART evaluation. However, the use of • Catalyst life. ‘‘discount’’ the cost of the auxiliary this metric further implies that • Interest rate. power system by 80%, but rather additional thresholds of acceptability, • Effect on cost of PNM’s assumption distributed it among the control projects separate from the $/ton metric, be of an emission rate of 0.07 lbs/MMBtu. planned around the same time that developed for BART determinations for The NPS concluded their critique of triggered its need according to each both single and multiple Class I PNM’s cost estimate with their own control’s contribution to draft pressure analyses. We have not used this metric estimate of an average cost of $2,600/ton lost. This recognizes that the upgrade because (1) We believe it is unnecessary for the four units of the SJGS. provides benefits to the entire system in judging the cost effectiveness of Response: We agree with the general and includes elements that are more BART, (2) it complicates the BART contention that many individual cost than strictly necessary because of the analysis, and (3) it is difficult to judge. items for the installation of SCR on the installation of the SCR. Therefore, it is We conclude it is sufficient to analyze units of the SJGS were overestimated by not appropriate to attribute the entire the cost effectiveness of potential BART PNM. Please see elsewhere in our cost of the upgrade to the SCR project. controls using $/ton, in conjunction response to comments for our opinion We believe our approach is consistent with the modeled visibility benefit of regarding the appropriate estimated with standard engineering practices. the BART control. We have addressed costs for these and other cost items. We Comment: EPA failed to account for the commenter’s statement that we note that the NPS estimate of an average additional costs associated with should not aggregate visibility cost of $2,600/ton for the four units of protecting the air preheater following an improvement over Class I areas the SJGS closely agrees with our own SCR Installation. Ammonia reacts with elsewhere in our response to comments. revised estimate. sulfur in the flue gas downstream of the Comment: EPA failed to account for SCR forming ammonium bisulfate 2. Comments on Specific Cost Line the costs associated with ensuring (ABS), which condenses in the air Items sufficient auxiliary power to operate preheater. ABS is an acidic substance The comments that follow have been SCRs at SJGS. EPA discounted by nearly that forms a sticky deposit on heat summarized to capture each one’s main 80 percent the estimated cost of the transfer surfaces, resulting in both points and most of the references have auxiliary power upgrades needed to corrosion of the equipment and the been removed. The reader is encouraged power the SCRs. The theory behind this collection of fly ash that plug passages, to refer to our Complete Response to sharply discounted cost estimate is that which ultimately impairs the efficiency Comments for NM Regional Haze/ the SCRs will only be responsible for and reliability of the unit. As such, the Visibility Transport FIP for more details approximately 20 percent of the total installation of a retrofit SCR generally and references. draft pressure of the units and that requires a modification to the air Comment: The NPS stated that PNM therefore the cost of the auxiliary power preheater to allow for easier cleaning of has improperly rejected use of the Cost upgrades should be allocated in similar the basket surfaces in order to protect Manual in favor of methods not allowed fashion. Without SCRs, no additional the heat transfer elements against the potential damage that might otherwise by EPA. The NPS states the SCR cost auxiliary power would be needed. As result from ABS. EPA deleted the costs estimates submitted by PNM are such, those costs must be included in of protecting the air preheater in its SCR severely lacking in the types of specific the cost of the SCRs, as they represent cost analysis, ‘‘pending compelling information needed to give them one of the site-specific concerns that justification that they are required for credibility. The NPS goes on to provide could make the installation of SCR at the SCR.’’ EPA’s cost analysis a great deal of detailed information that SJGS more difficult than other units. recognizes that modifications to the air supports their opinion that specific cost The decision by EPA to exclude these preheater are generally required for items were overestimated. This costs underestimates the cost of SCRs ‘‘units that burn high sulfur coal,’’ but information includes the following cost for SJGS by $73,175,000. EPA assumes that such modifications item categories: Response: We disagree that installing • Appropriateness of using the Cost are not necessary ‘‘for a properly SCRs would by itself trigger the need to designed SCR on a boiler that burns low Manual. upgrade the auxiliary power system, • Problems in B&V’s scaling of cost sulfur coal.’’ EPA is correct that, in spite especially to the extent proposed by of the quoted discussion above, Sargent items from another project. PNM. The upgrade benefits the entire • Ductwork and ammonia grid costs. & Lundy did not recommend air • auxiliary power system. The preheater modifications in the SCR cost Reactor box and breaching. modifications, for example, include new • Expansion joints. analysis for the Navajo Generating • transformers, switchgear, and motor Station. However, that recommendation Sonic horns. control centers that will serve the entire • Elevator. was based on the specific emission fan auxiliary loads of both the Consent • Structural steel. characteristics at Navajo Generating Decree projects and the SCR.22 • SCR bypass. The Station, which differ significantly from • Catalyst. modifications also include replacing the those at SJGS. existing fans with upgraded units. These • NOX monitoring. Response: This comment attempts to • Auxiliary electrical system fans will service more than just the distinguish the emission characteristics upgrades. SCRs. of Navajo Generating Station and the • Instrumentation and control SJGS by pointing to differences in the systems. 22 B&V 10/22/10 Cost Analysis, Sec. 3.0 and coal quality to support air preheater • 11/4/10 Norem E-mail to Kordzi, Re: Questions on Air preheaters. PNM’s Revised Cost Estimate for the SJGS SCR modifications at SJGS but not at Navajo. Project, Response to Question 3, Table 3 of We obtained and analyzed the Navajo 21 70 FR 39167. attachment 1. design basis coal quality. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52396 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

differences in coal quality are either not drawings; no catalyst vendor quotes; both an SCR pressure differential and material (sulfur, heat content) or does not identify the type of catalyst, stiffening to +/¥ 35 in w.g., we feel mitigate the potential impacts of e.g., honeycomb or plate; does not stiffening costs should have been based ammonium bisulfate plugging (higher specify the catalyst pitch; and is silent on no more than the SCR’s contribution ash at SJGS). The key factors that as to static mixers, all important factors to the increase from current conditions determine whether ammonium bisulfate in determining the pressure drop due to of 18 in. w.g. to 35 in. w.g. Thus, we plugging will occur are not coal quality, the SCR. Thus, we do not believe there modified our cost analysis to estimate but rather the amount of sulfur trioxide is a basis for the 10 in. w.g. used to cost the stiffening cost based on the SCR’s (SO3) and ammonia in the exhaust gases boiler stiffening and to justify balanced maximum contribution to the increase that reach the air preheater and the air draft conversion. This pressure drop from 18 in. w.g. to 35 in. w.g. or by preheater temperature regime. The likely has not been optimized and could 59%. This increased our estimate of the formation of ammonium bisulfate be significantly reduced by catalyst capital cost to install SCRs by depends on the relative amounts of selection (e.g., by using honeycomb $19,258,318. ammonia and SO3 in the exhaust gases. with large pitch) and ductwork design. Comment: EPA failed to account for When the molar ratio is more than 2:1, Therefore, we do not concur that the the cost of installing the initial layers in ammonium sulfate (not ammonium record supports a pressure drop of 10 in the SCR. The cost analysis prepared by bisulfate) is preferentially formed. The w.g. for the SCR. B&V included the cost of the initial average molar ratio for both SJGS and Comment: Installation of SCR’s at layers of catalyst in the capital cost and Navajo over the catalyst lifetime is SJGS will increase boiler and duct including the replacement layers in the much higher than 2:1. Thus, ammonium implosion potential due to increased annual operating cost calculation. EPA, sulfate would be preferentially formed. draft system requirements and fan however, appears to have Ammonium sulfate is a dry powder at pressure ratings. SCRs will trigger the misunderstood the analysis and all air preheater operating temperatures need to choose between either designing assumed that the initial catalyst layers and does not create a fouling problem. to the general standard of +/¥ 35 inches were double-counted. As a result, it Thus, consistent with Sargent & Lundy’s w.g. (which is typical for a newly subtracted the initial catalyst cost from conclusion for the nearby Navajo designed power plant) or performing a the capital cost calculation, without Station, which burns a similar coal, ‘‘more complete and rigorous analysis’’ adding it to the annual cost calculation. ammonium bisulfate fouling would not to determine whether PNM will qualify As such, EPA’s failure to include the be expected and we do not believe that for an exception from the generally- cost of the initial layers of catalyst in its upgrades are justified for the air applicable implosion protection analysis underestimates the cost of preheaters due to SCR installation. standard through the use of alternative installing SCRs at SJGS by $33,556,000. Comment: The installation of SCR at methods. To date, neither PNM nor its Response: We agree with this SJGS would increase the resistance in consultants have fully determined comment. We have revised our cost the flue gas path for the units. To whether an alternative to the +/¥ 35 analysis to include the initial catalyst overcome that additional resistance, inches w.g. standard would suffice charge. PNM would need to install new higher following installation of an SCR, due to Comment: Sorbent injection will be capacity fan rotors and motors because the significant amount of time and needed if PNM must install SCRs at the SCRs will add an additional expense that would be associated with SJGS, and the EPA cost analysis should pressure drop in the system of 10 inches that analysis. Therefore, B&V included reflect those costs. Sorbent injection of water gauge (w.g.). This change in the cost of stiffening the boilers to +/¥ systems are often used at pressure and higher fan pressure ratings 35 inches w.g. in its analysis. EPA’s coal-fired power plants equipped with would increase the potential risk of a failure to properly account for the boiler SCRs to help reduce emissions of boiler implosion during transient (upset stiffening costs underestimates the cost sulfuric acid mist that are an or malfunction) conditions. The analysis of the SCR retrofits for SJGS by unavoidable byproduct of the chemical prepared by B&V of the expected cost of $55,718,000 in capital costs for boiler reactions that occur in an SCR. Sulfuric an SCR retrofit includes the costs to stiffening and properly sized fans and acid mist resulting from SCR operation mitigate the implosion risk by motors. has been known to cause a visible converting to balanced draft and Response: This comment plume at some units in the industry. stiffening the boiler and associated flue acknowledges that the boiler stiffening Although the installation of SCRs may gas path. EPA concludes that additional costs represent a worst case estimate. not result in such a plume at SJGS, the boiler stiffening would not be required, The magnitude of these costs is unusual. sorbent injection system would be stating simply that ‘‘a balance draft The BART Guidelines require that needed to ensure a visible plume does conversion with the proposed stiffening unusual costs be documented in the not materialize. The failure to address is not part of an SCR project.’’ record. These costs are stated without the sulfuric acid mist created by the Response: The basis for selecting 10 providing the underlying engineering SCR can reduce any visibility benefits in. w.g. for a 77% NOX removal SCR is calculations. PNM states that the boilers associated with an SCR. not explained or documented in the were stiffened to negative pressure Response: We disagree with this record. The overall SCR system pressure differentials of 18 in. w.g. during the comment. B&V updated its cost analysis drop consists of losses from the SCR Consent Decree projects. The 10 in. w.g. in October 2010. This is the most recent catalyst, static mixers, and duct work. estimate is a worst-case upper bound version of B&V’s cost analysis, which Determining the pressure drop due to that is not supported by vendor quotes was critiqued in our Technical Support the SCR requires a more advanced and SCR design. We agree some cost for Document (TSD) in our proposal. This design than presented in the B&V BART code compliance is warranted. analysis did not include any costs for analysis. Instead, B&V appears to have However, the worst case used in B&V’s sorbent injection. In its June 21, 2010 assumed that the pressure drop due to analysis is unreasonable and BART Determination, NMED concluded the SCR would be 10 in. w.g., which is unsupported, given the SCR’s potential that BART for SJGS was SCR plus at the upper end of the usual range of upper bound contribution of 10 in. w.g. sorbent injection to remove SO3 and 3 to 10 in. w.g. The B&V record, for Absent the ‘‘more complete and rigorous requested a sorbent injection cost example, contains no duct arrangement analysis’’ to support upper bounds for analysis from PNM. However, we

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52397

disagreed and concluded that sorbent based on the maximum slip from PNM’s Significant Deterioration (PSD) program injection was not required due to the design specifications. This revised under the CAA requires major sources low sulfur content of the coal, sulfuric acid emission rate remains to install additional controls to address availability of low conversion SCR significantly lower than that estimated any significant net emissions increases catalyst, and our calculations. We see no by NMED and is a minimal level of resulting from a physical change to an reason to change that view. The reasons sulfuric acid emissions. We continue to emissions unit. Because the SCR will advanced in this comment for requiring conclude that sorbent injection is not constitute a physical change to the SJGS sorbent injection to control sulfuric acid required due to the low sulfur content emission units, and could have the mist (SAM) are not applicable to the of the coal, availability of low potential to result in a significant net SJGS SCR. Visible plume issues have conversion SCR catalysts, removal by emissions increase in sulfuric acid mist, only been experienced at units that burn existing control equipment and our additional controls could be required by high sulfur coal, containing greater than revised calculations. the PSD program. If triggered, the PSD 2+% sulfur and typically over 3% Comment: The EPA also cites to the program would require the installation sulfur, e.g., Gavin, Ghent. The coal results of a stack test performed at the of ‘‘best available control technology,’’ burned at SJGS contains 0.77% sulfur, Navajo Generating Station in November which for sulfuric acid mist emission much lower than the amount of sulfur 2009 to conclude that actual sulfuric increases would likely include a sorbent that has resulted in visible plume issues acid mist emissions are lower than injection system. Although there elsewhere and is considered to be low would be estimated using the EPRI remains some uncertainty as to whether sulfur. No explanation is provided for Method. However, the air quality the SCR would trigger PSD permitting why the commenter believes a plume control industry generally considers requirements, PNM believes it is may ‘‘materialize’’ on installing SCR. If sulfuric acid testing to be very prone to appropriate to include the cost of the the SCR is properly designed to address inaccuracy because the test methods system in the SCR cost analysis, and the SJGS’s coal, a plume should not used are susceptible to bias. Also, failure to include those costs materialize. Low conversion catalysts sulfuric acid emissions vary underestimates the cost of the SCRs by capable of achieving an SO2 conversion significantly from unit to unit because $12,118,000. emissions removal is dependent on as low as 0.1% per layer of catalyst in Response: For the reasons outlined the high dust, hot (>650 F) position and many variables including temperature, elsewhere in our response to comments, 0.5% across the entire SCR reactor are moisture, process operation, air quality we believe the level of sulfuric acid common in higher sulfur and other control equipment, ambient conditions, generated at the SJGS will be so low that applications. Even lower levels can be and the quality of the testing. As sorbent injection will not be needed. achieved if the catalyst is regenerated. mentioned above, SJGS and the Navajo Comment: EPA’s calculation of Generating Station differ significantly in However, it is possible that the sulfuric acid emissions is incorrect. EPA many of these respects. Therefore, it is installation of SCR on all four units of estimated sulfuric acid mist emission not appropriate to use test results from the SJGS could generate enough levels based on a document prepared by Navajo Generating Station to make additional sulfuric acid that a PSD the Electric Power Research Institute assumptions about SJGS. review could be triggered. EPA is not (EPRI), which describes a formula used Response: We believe this comment the permitting authority for sources in by many utilities to estimate sulfuric mischaracterizes our analysis. We did New Mexico but we believe it is acid emissions. However, in applying not use test results from the Navajo reasonable to anticipate that a that formula, EPA assumed an ammonia Generating Station to make assumptions subsequent BACT analysis for sulfuric slip value of 2.0 parts per million (ppm), about the SJGS. Rather, we compared acid emissions at the SJGS will even though actual ammonia slip varies sulfuric acid mist emissions calculated determine that no additional controls over the life of a catalyst layer from very for Navajo using the EPRI procedure are required because despite the low values up to 2.0 ppm as the catalyst with a stack test at Navajo in accordance projected increase in sulfuric acid ages. A more appropriate assumption for with EPA Method 8A procedures. Thus, emissions, emissions are expected to ammonia slip is the 0.75 ppm value we compared Navajo EPRI estimates remain low. In considering SCR for recommended by the EPRI formula, with Navajo test data to judge the controlling NOx, EPA specifically which better represents the expected accuracy of the EPRI procedure. This considered the issues of sulfuric acid ammonia slip over the life of a catalyst. comparison suggests that the EPRI formation. In our review, we believe Using that assumption, the sulfuric acid method may overestimate sulfuric acid that the emission limits for NOx can be emissions from SJGS are calculated to mist emissions when firing a similar achieved through the use of lower be twice that assumed by EPA. As a coal if PNM’s assumptions are used. reactivity catalyst, thus mitigating the result, EPA’s attempt to justify its This analysis supports the conclusion formation of sulfuric acid across the decision to delete the costs of sorbent that the EPRI method and parameters catalyst bed. We have set an emission injection based on minimal sulfuric acid we used provide a better estimation of limit for emissions of sulfuric acid that mist emissions is incorrect. sulfuric acid emissions than the restricts the increase of sulfuric acid. Response: The commenter is correct methodology and parameters utilized by According to the two most recent Toxic in that the EPRI report does suggest that PNM and NMED in their analysis, Release Inventory (TRI) reports a value of 0.75 ppm should be used. We which overestimates these emissions. submitted by SJGS, the total sulfuric note that the ammonia slip of an SCR is We also note that PNM estimates for acid emissions are very low (17.77 TPY minimal when the catalyst is new and sulfuric acid emissions that were for 2009, and 27.5 TPY for 2008). Based increases as the catalyst ages. In order reported to the Toxic Release Inventory on our calculations, we believe the to be conservative, we recalculated the in recent years are much lower than current emissions of sulfuric acid to be sulfuric acid emission rate, based on those estimated by PNM for their BART significantly lower than these reported zero ammonia slip, to be 2.6 X10¥4 lb/ analysis. values due to the low sulfur content of MMBtu, compared to our original value Comment: It is appropriate to include the coal and the removal of sulfuric acid of 1.06 X10¥4 lb/MMBtu at 2ppm sorbent injection costs in the SCR cost in the installed control equipment, ammonia slip. The 2.0 ppm we selected analysis because sorbent injection may including wet scrubbers and fabric in our proposed visibility modeling was be required by law. The Prevention of filters. We project, with the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52398 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

implementation of SCR using a low attached to the PNM comments indicate designed and operated SCR system to reactivity catalyst that total emissions of more room for crane access at SJRPP prevent SCR catalyst fouling during sulfuric acid will remain below 22 than at SJGS, but this does not address startup or operation on oil. Two tons/year.23 In this particular case, the capital cost of the structural steel examples were cited in our TSD as part sorbent injection technology is unlikely framework, only the cost of constructing of our proposal to confirm this to be cost-effective on a cost per ton it. information. In addition, Sargent & basis of sulfuric acid mist removed. The BART Guidelines require that Lundy, the consultant that prepared the Again, we note that the New Mexico ‘‘documentation’’ be provided for ‘‘any design and cost estimate for SCR for the Environmental Department is the unusual circumstances that exist for the 3 units at Navajo Generating Station, an permitting authority and has the source that would lead to cost- existing facility of similar age and primary responsibility to implement the effectiveness estimates that would retrofit complexity that starts up on oil, New Source Review program which exceed that for recent retrofits.’’ We did not recommend an SCR bypass in its includes the PSD permitting process, specifically asked PNM to identify any BART analysis. and the issuance of the applicable retrofit constraints and support them Comment: The EPA cost estimate also permit. NMED will be responsible for with engineering calculations, drawings, does not properly estimate annual determining if PSD will be triggered for and photographs. PNM has not provided operating costs for auxiliary power increases in sulfuric acid emissions or specific documentation that supports consumption and catalyst replacement other NAAQS pollutants and in the use of their chosen structural steel rate. B&V estimated the amount of determining the BACT for such complexity factors. Nevertheless, based auxiliary power needed to run the SCR increases. on the information that was provided, to be 16,297 kW (for all four units) at a Comment: EPA failed to account for we have modified our cost analysis to cost of $0.06095 per kWh, based on a the additional steel that will be needed use B&V’s estimate for structural steel, site-specific analysis. Specifically, due to site congestion at the SJGS. EPA which includes the ‘‘complexity B&V’s calculation was based on the assumed that the ‘‘complexity factor’’ factors’’ cited in this comment, as B&V calculation of the additional fan energy applied to the structural steel cost in produced designs for both facilities. (based on flue gas flow rate and PNM’s cost analysis was a ‘‘contingency Comment: EPA failed to account for estimated pressure drop from the SCR) factor.’’ As such, EPA assumed that the SCR bypass that will be necessary to and the power consumption for the PNM had double-counted contingency protect the SCR during startup on oil. auxiliary equipment (such as the costs by using both the ‘‘complexity EPA assumed that SJGS could initiate ammonia system). EPA, on the other factor’’ for structural steel and a more startup of its units on oil without hand, simply assumed a cost of 5,400 general ‘‘contingency factor’’ overall. fouling the catalyst in the SCR. EPA’s kW at $0.05 per kWh based on a PNM asks EPA to reconsider the justification for the removal of this cost percentage estimate for ‘‘typical’’ SCR line item was that fuel oil is efficiently analysis provided by B&V, given that installations. This error underestimates burned in modern low NOx burners the engineers at B&V made several site the cost of auxiliary power consumption with oil igniters, citing two coal-fired visits to SJGS and designed the SCRs for when operating SCRs by $5,388,000. units that have shown the ability to Response: EPA disagrees with the the St. John’s River Power Park (SJRPP). startup on oil without a bypass and two comment. First, the claimed ‘‘site- The pictures of SJRPP and SJGS oil-fired boilers with SCRs that do not specific analysis’’ was not submitted for provided by B&V illustrate the have a bypass. Based on these inclusion in the record, and thus EPA differences in site congestion. EPA references, EPA concluded that SJGS and the public could not review it. underestimated the cost of its BART will be able to startup on oil without Second, the values that would affect the proposal by $35,087,000 by failing to risking catalyst fouling resulting from a cost analysis, e.g., duct length, catalyst accurately account for site congestion. coating of incompletely combusted fuel pressure drop, would be estimates as the Response: A complexity factor is a oil. The failure to account for the SCR system has not yet been designed. subset of a contingency factor as it needed SCR bypass system In fact, the record does not even contain estimates unknown costs. PNM applied underestimates the cost of installing an arrangement diagram, required to a complexity factor of 1.2 for Units 1 SCR at SJGS by $126,484,000. determine duct lengths. Third, the B&V and 4 and 1.5 for Units 3 and 4. We Response: We disagree with this estimate of the amount of auxiliary regard these factors as rough estimates comment. The removal of SCR bypass power needed to run the SCR (16,297 that cannot be fully determined until costs was based on several factors. First, kW) was initially rejected by us as it the SCR is designed. We visited the a noted air pollution handbook amounts to 0.9% of the total gross SJGS plant on May 19, 2011.24 This visit concluded (before U.S. ozone season generating capacity of the station, which confirmed that the site is congested. trading programs made them routine): is high compared to other estimates However, this does not confirm that the ‘‘most applications do not have SCR known to us. An SCR typically uses cost of structural steel for Units 1 and bypasses, since routines are used during about 0.3% of a plant’s electric output, 4 would be 1.2 times higher than at startup and shutdown which preclude which would be about 5,400 kW or SJRPP, and 1.5 times higher for Units 2 25 their need’’ (Cho and Dubow), and three times less than assumed in the and 3, as this comment contends. The regulations sometimes prohibit their B&V cost analysis. The BART materials provided by PNM do not use. Also, experience in Japan and Guidelines require that unusual costs be contain any plot plans or design Germany has shown them to be costly documented in the record. PNM did not drawing for SJRPP (or SJGS) that would and not required to prevent damage due supply any additional information to allow one to conclude anything about to low-load oil firing, thermal gradients, support its unusually high estimate. the cost of structural steel at one facility and other conditions. We believe a Fourth, as discussed elsewhere in our compared to the other. Photographs bypass is not required in a properly response to comments, no support has

¥ been provided for PNM’s claim of a 10 23 Based on our emission limit of 2.6×10 4 lb/ 25 S.M. Cho and S.Z. Dubow, Design of a Selective in. w.g.26 pressure drop due to the SCR, MMBtu and conservatively assuming each unit Catalytic Reduction System for NOX Abatement in operates 100% of the year (8760 hr/yr). a Coal-Fired Cogeneration Plant, Proceedings of the 24 See San Juan Generating Station Site Visit, American Power Conference, April 13–15, 1992, pp. 26 10/22/10 B&V Cost Analysis Update, Appendix 5/23/11. 717–722. B; 6/7/07 B&V San Juan BART Analysis, p. B–3.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52399

which is at the upper end of the usual to 72 weeks of construction that PNM’s modifications, etc.) than proposed by range of 3 to 10 in. w. g. Fifth, the unit experienced consultants predict. B&V. Further, for our proposal, we did cost of electricity used by B&V, Response: We disagree with this not estimate construction duration, but $0.06095/kWh, is much higher than the comment. The B&V direct installation rather the length of time from the auxiliary power cost commonly used in costs were calculated by multiplying effective date of the final rulemaking to cost effectiveness analyses, and thus total purchased equipment costs by startup of the SCR or 36 months. We was not justified. Auxiliary power is the various unsupported percentages, a note that we have revised our proposal power required to run the plant, or rough estimating practice referred to as to allow 60 months from the effective power not sold. Cost effectiveness ‘‘factoring.’’ B&V did not submit into the date of the rule allowing additional analyses are based on the cost to the record the basis for the various factors flexibility in deploying workers. Thus, owner to generate electricity, or the that they used. The percentages that the basis of this comment’s starting busbar cost, not market retail rates. The B&V used are demonstrably high. We point, an EPA estimate of 38 weeks, is B&V estimate is based on the average compared each of B&V’s direct costs incorrect. In addition, the B&V estimate forecasted cost of replacement power for with those from a major SCR designer’s does not contain a schedule, which is 2007 to 2012.27 Thus, even if this is the (Babcock Power) database and from required to estimate the staffing and correct site specific cost, it is the wrong similar SCR projects nationwide. duration of construction. metric for a cost effectiveness analysis. Foundation and supports, costed by Comment: EPA asserts that ‘‘[t]he We further note that the use of forecast B&V as 30% of purchased equipment contingencies included in the B&V cost cost is inconsistent with the BART cost, for example, based on its estimate estimates are double-counted and methodology, which is based on current of purchased equipment cost, are two to excessive,’’ based on the misimpression dollars. We conservatively used the three times higher than upper bound that there are three contingencies upper end of the range of costs assumed costs reported by Babcock Power for ‘‘imbedded’’ in the analysis. However, in BART cost effectiveness analyses similar sized units ($8/MW compared two of the three allowances are for ($0.03/kWh to $0.05/kWh) 28 or $0.050/ with the B&V estimate of $18/MW to known costs, and therefore are not kWh. After our analysis was complete, $29/MW for SJGS). Based on these ‘‘contingencies.’’ Specifically, the PNM responded to a question from us comparisons the B&V’s costs were complexity factor for structural steel that its average cost of production is excessive. No documentation has been costs of 1.2 (for Units 1 and 2) and 1.5 $0.047/kWh ($47.83/MWh). This rounds provided to justify the higher B&V costs. (for Units 3 and 4) are known, expected up to 0.05/kWh, the number we used. The Cost Manual estimating costs, and therefore do not constitute a Thus, we have made no changes to our procedure for direct installation costs is contingency factor, as noted previously. estimate of auxiliary power demand. based on the same factoring approach Also, the $2 million estimated for Comment: In its analysis, EPA used by B&V. We tabulated the factors underground obstructions and the recognized that the Cost Manual does for total direct installation costs for all $500,000 estimated for on-site buildings provide factors to estimate certain controls reported in the Manual. These are also known, and therefore do not ‘‘direct installation costs,’’ namely ranged from 30% to 85% of the represent a duplicative contingency foundation/supports, handling/erection, purchased equipment cost. In factor. Thus, EPA’s claim that PNM electrical, piping, insulation, painting, comparison, B&V assumed direct double-counted its contingency costs is demolition, and relocation. However, installation costs were 103% to 113% of incorrect and underestimates the cost of the Control Cost Manual fails to provide total purchased equipment cost. SCRs at SJGS by $61,978,000. factors to estimate these costs for SCR, We calculated direct installation costs Response: This comment explains as recognized in EPA’s analysis. EPA for SJGS using the median of this range that the ‘‘complexity factor,’’ site indiscriminately took the median of the or 62% of purchased equipment cost. unknowns, and general building factors for other control technologies, This is consistent with the upper bound requirements are not contingencies, but which vary significantly from SCRs. As Babcock Power estimate for actual rather known factors. Based on this a result, EPA’s analysis slashes in half retrofit SCR installations and estimates explanation and the information we the direct installation costs estimated by made by others. The B&V estimate is have about the SJGS, we concur that B&V. For example, the direct costs also high compared to direct installation these complexity factors, and the assumed by EPA for Unit 1 are costs that it reported for the SJRPP SCR, engineering estimates for underground $8,799,917, but that amount would only which was otherwise used to obstructions and on-site buildings, are cover 159,998 man-hours, or 21 weeks extrapolate equipment costs to SJGS. reasonable and we have modified our of construction. EPA’s own schedule, The direct installation costs for the cost estimates to reflect B&V’s estimates. even though insufficient itself, assumes SJRPP SCR were 95% of the total Comment: EPA also claims that the 38 weeks of construction, nearly double purchased cost. We have revised our Interest During Construction included of the amount that EPA’s analysis could cost estimate to use this percentage to in the B&V cost estimates are not afford. Thus, EPA’s estimate is conform to the balance of the B&V cost allowed by the Cost Manual. Therefore, insufficient for its own estimated estimate. this cost was eliminated from the cost construction timeline, much less the 64 The B&V estimate assumes a 150-man analysis underlying the proposed FIP. crew for the entire 21 weeks, a 50-hour However, this cost item is a real project 27 E-mail from Norem to Kordzi, October 21, workweek for the duration, and a wage cost, which will be incurred by PNM to 2010, Re: PNM Responses to Follow-Up Questions of $55/hour. This represents peak finance the project and must by from October 14, 2010 Conference Call Regarding staffing and labor rates, even though the recovered from the SJGS customers. The BART Cost Estimate, October 21, 2010 (10/21/10 number of workers would vary over rejection of costs associated with Responses), Response to Question 9, pp. 3–4. 28 Sargent & Lundy, Sooner Units 1 & 2, Muskogee time. Thus, our estimate of direct Interest During Construction Units 4 & 5 Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) installation costs corresponds to a underestimates the cost of the project by BART Analysis Follow-Up Report, Prepared for longer duration than claimed. $78,300,000. Oklahoma Gas & Electric, December 28, 2009, Regardless, it is important to note that Response: The B&V cost analysis Attach. C, pdf 109; (Gerald Gentleman—$45.65/ MWh; White Bluff—$47/MWh; Boardman/ this duration corresponds to include a charge for interest during Northeastern/Naughton—$50/MWh; Nebraska construction of a much smaller project construction of 7.41% of direct plus City—$30/MWh). (less SCR bypass, preheater indirect costs. This charge is generally

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52400 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

known as the Allowance for Funds Used technology. As a result of the Proposed of $1 Billion, we estimated that cost to During Construction (AFUDC) and is Rule, PNM has indicated that possible be approximately $250 Million. As specifically disallowed under the Cost sources of replacement power may be discussed elsewhere in this notice, Manual methodology and specifically needed to ensure it can fulfill its taking into consideration various disallowed for SCRs.29 A cost obligation to provide electricity to the comments, we have refined our estimate effectiveness analysis is a regulatory citizens of New Mexico. to be $344,542,604. In light of the analysis that is based on current annual Response: The commenter is correct visibility benefits we predict will occur, dollars without any inflation. AFUDC is that the remaining useful life of a we consider this to be cost effective. We an accounting method. Assets under facility may impact the BART take our duty to estimate the cost of construction do not provide service to determination. As we note in the BART controls very seriously, and make every current customers and thus associated Guidelines, attempt to make a thoughtful and well interest and allowed return on equity The ‘‘remaining useful life’’ of a source, if informed determination. However, we are not charged to current customers. it represents a relatively short time period, do not consider a potential increase in Instead, AFUDC capitalizes these costs may affect the annualized costs of retrofit electricity rates to be the most and adds them to the rate base so that controls. For example, the methods for appropriate type of analysis for they can be recovered from future calculating annualized costs in EPA’s considering the costs of compliance in customers when the assets are used. OAQPS Control Cost Manual require the use of a specified time period for amortization a BART determination. Nevertheless, we Thus, these charges represent future that varies based upon the type of control. If note that our cost estimate, being about cash income to the utility. In other the remaining useful life will clearly exceed 1⁄3 that of PNM’s will result in words, AFUDC is the accumulated cost this time period, the remaining useful life has significantly less costs being passed on of carrying capital and holding it essentially no effect on control costs and on to rate payers. waiting to spend, so money can be made the BART determination process. Where the in the future by selling electricity. remaining useful life is less than the time 4. Comments That Opined on Our Future income should not be charged period for amortizing costs, you should use Reliance on the EPA Air Pollution against the cost of a SCR in a BART this shorter time period in your cost Control Cost Manual calculations.30 cost-effectiveness analysis. These costs The BART Guidelines further clarify, Comment: The rejection of PNM’s are not part of the constant dollar escalation factors is unrealistic. By approach found in the Cost Manual and ‘‘[w]here this affects the BART determination, this date should be relying too heavily on the Cost Manual, should not be included in BART cost- EPA’s analysis not only omits the effectiveness analyses. assured by a federally- or State- enforceable restriction preventing specific line items, it also omits or alters 3. Concerns Over Possible Electricity further operation.’’ various estimating factors utilized by Rate Increases As part of our review of PNM’s BART B&V in PNM’s analysis. EPA relied on Comment: Both the CAA and EPA determination for the SJGS, we met with the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost BART regulations require consideration representatives of PNM and its Index (CEPCI) to escalate costs from the of the remaining useful life of a source. contractor several times, and Cost Manual. However, although that Requiring the imposition of possibly $1 communicated numerous times through index may be a reasonable tool for a billion or more of control technology e-mail and phone. At no point did PNM chemical plant, it does not properly capital costs at SJGS, a nearly 40-year indicate that it wished to constrain the account for escalation of costs at power old plant, presents a likely scenario amortization period for financing BART plants. In contrast, B&V developed an where the remaining useful life of SJGS controls based on the remaining useful appropriate escalation factor with the is less than the time period needed for life of the facility through the use of a help of an outside consulting firm amortizing the costs of the control federally enforceable restriction. specializing in financial analysis and technologies. As such, it could make Comment: Several local and county forecasting, which incorporates the production at SJGS during its remaining governments and municipal power complete B&V database of ‘‘as-built’’ useful life uneconomical in comparison systems expressed concern that the costs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics with other existing or future plants. If, proposed FIP would require a major indices, and the consulting firm’s in light of SJGS’ estimated remaining capital expenditure that could well database of costs and indices, all useful life, it is determined that an exceed $750 million, according to PNM. tailored specifically to the power investment of such magnitude does not Such significant costs will drastically generation industry. make economic sense, owners of SJGS increase the cost of power produced by Response: The CECPI, which is must evaluate alternate long-term the SJGS and have the potential to published monthly by the magazine, options for meeting obligations to increase electricity rates in the Chemical Engineering, has been used for provide a cost-effective, reliable supply communities served by the SJGS. decades in regulatory cost effectiveness of electricity to customers. As such, the Another commenter stated our NOX analyses and is one of the factors that significant cost of requiring such SCR at BART proposal for the SJGS would cost allows a comparison to be made SJGS will substantially increase the cost New Mexico or Albuquerque ratepayers between cost effectiveness analyses at of electricity produced by SJGS. Over $10.20 more a year, or 85 cents a month, different facilities. This method was two million electric customers in New which is the price of a candy bar, so selected by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Mexico and other western states stand cleaning up this decades old air Planning and Standards for use in to be directly and adversely affected by pollution is affordable and now is the regulatory cost effectiveness analyses the EPA proposal. PNM estimates that time to do it. because ‘‘this index specifically covers the average residential customer will Response: As discussed in our cost items that are pertinent to pollution experience a 10 percent increase in rates proposal, we disagree with PNM’s cost control equipment (materials, due solely to EPA’s proposed SCR estimate for installing SCR on the four construction labor, structural support, units of the SJGS. Although PNM engineering & supervision, etc.).’’ 31 The 29 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, pdf estimated the total cost to be in excess 486, Table 2.5, E (Allowance for Funds During 31 E-mail from Larry Sorrels (OAQPS) to Don Construction) = 0. 30 70 FR 39104, 39169. Shepherd (Park Service) with cc to Anita Lee (EPA

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52401

B&V escalation index, on the other did not provide any documentation of 2002 version of the Manual was the very hand, is proprietary and not subject to unusual circumstances related to the first version to specifically address NOX public review. BART determinations in any of its cost controls at all. According to the Comment: A commenter contends analysis. introduction to the Manual, EPA was at that EPA improperly rejected PNM’s We subsequently toured the SJGS that time ‘‘entering new and uncharted cost estimates, because EPA thought plant site on May 19, 2011.34 The SJGS territory for part of the Manual’’ because them inconsistent with the Cost Manual. site is congested, but not more so than ‘‘previous editions did not discuss NOX The commenter states EPA should other space-constrained sites where SCR or SO2 controls, and [the 2002] edition consider site-specific costs, even when has been retrofit for much less cost than starts the process of correcting that those costs are not included in the estimated for SJGS.35 Gibson, a oversight.’’ Finally, EPA also admits in Manual. The commenter further states complex, space-constrained retrofit in the Manual that it had difficulty that EPA did not take ‘‘unusual which the SCR was built 230 feet above obtaining information on control costs circumstances’’ into proper account and the power station using the largest crane because most of the information is expresses the view that EPA did not in the world 36 only cost $249/kW in proprietary—the very type of consider site-specific elements that 2010 dollars.37 Similarly, the Belews information to which B&V has ready would eliminate available control Creek SCR, one of the largest and most access. technologies from consideration. complex SCR retrofit projects in the Response: As discussed elsewhere in Response: We disagree with U.S., involved installing the SCR 280 our response to comments, the Cost commenter’s view that our cost analysis feet above ground level above the boiler Manual contains two types of is improper, but we agree that the Cost building. This retrofit only cost $202/ information, general cost analysis Manual is not the only source of kW in 2010 dollars,38 39 compared to methodology and control-specific information for the BART analysis. For cost estimates of $423/kW to $567/kW costing information. This comment instance, the reference to the Cost for SJGS. B&V’s estimates of capital cost addresses the latter. The information on Manual in the BART Guidelines clearly to retrofit SCR at SJGS ($446/kW–$599/ SCR in Chapter 2 of the Cost Manual recognizes the potential limitations of kW) are higher than actual installed cost contains general information on SCR, the Manual and the need to consider for Gibson and many other existing design procedures, and some cost additional information sources: retrofit SCRs, including those with information. We agree that the cost information does not reflect current The basis for equipment cost estimates also extreme retrofit difficulty. The record should be documented, either with data including the information we have market costs. Thus, cost data should be supplied by an equipment vendor (i.e., about the site does not document any escalated to current dollars using the budget estimates or bids) or by a referenced unusual circumstances that would CECPI before it is used or replaced with source (such as the OAQPS Control Cost justify the unusually high costs claimed site-specific vendor quotes. We did not Manual, Fifth Edition, February 1996, EPA use any SCR costs data from this chapter 453/B–96–001). In order to maintain and by B&V for SJGS. Thus, we do not believe that unusual circumstances are in our analysis. improve consistency, cost estimates should Comment: The EPA cost estimate only warranted. be based on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, differs from the Cost Manual where Comment: The exclusive use of the where possible. The Control Cost Manual doing so would serve to reduce the addresses most control technologies in Cost Manual underestimates the amount of the cost estimate. For sufficient detail for a BART analysis. The expected costs for SCRs at SJGS for example, EPA applied an SCR life span cost analysis should also take into account several reasons. First, the Manual was of 30 years instead of the 20 year life any site-specific design or other conditions last updated in 2002 and Section 4.2, identified above that affect the cost of a span provided in the Cost Manual. The Chapter 2, Selective Catalytic particular BART technology option.32 justification for choosing a different life Reduction, was actually written in span than provided for in the Manual is The Cost Manual establishes a October 2000. In addition, on page 2–40 methodology for calculating cost that other facilities have requested 30 of the SCR section, the Manual indicates year life spans in requests for proposal effectiveness that allows comparison that the costs presented are based on across multiple units. The regulatory and some unidentified SCRs in Europe 1998 dollars. Therefore, the Manual have lasted that long. If such general, cost is expressed in current real or does not reflect more recent experience constant dollars, less inflation. B&V did anecdotal information were sufficient to with SCR installations, the cost of convince EPA to stray from the Cost not follow the regulatory cost method. which has skyrocketed. Second, the Instead, it used CUECost, a model that Manual, the EPA analysis should be replete with variations from the estimates control costs using the 34 See San Juan Generating Station Site Visit, 5/ levelized cost method developed by the 23/11. outdated Cost Manual. The use of a 30- EPRI, which is not approved for BART 35 Revised BART Cost Effectiveness Analysis for year lifespan underestimates the cost determinations; extrapolation from Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Public Service estimate of SCR by $15,268,000. Company of New Mexico San Juan Generating Response: We disagree with this several other projects; and its own Station, November 2010, pp. 28–29. comment and we used the Cost Manual proprietary and confidential databases 36 Bob Ellis, Standing on the Shoulder of Giants, appropriately, as directed by the RHR. not available for public review. Modern Power Systems, July 2002. 37 We used it for cost factors that for As to unusual circumstances, the McIlvaine, NOX Market Update, August 2004. BART Guidelines call for SCR was retrofit on Gibson Units 2–4 in 2002 and reasons expressed elsewhere in our 2003 at $179/kW. Assuming 2002 dollars, this response to comments, we feel were ‘‘documentation’’ to be provided for escalates to ($179/kW)(550.7/395.6) = $249/kW. ‘‘any unusual circumstances that exist miscalculated by B&V, but were not http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/ otherwise available in the public for the source that would lead to cost- sampleupdates/NoxMarketUpdateSample.htm. effectiveness estimates that would 38 Bill Hoskins, Uniqueness of SCR Retrofits domain. We did not use any actual cost data from the Cost Manual. In the case exceed that for recent retrofits.’’ 33 PNM Translates into Broad Cost Variation, PowerGen Worldwide, May 2003. Available at: http:// of SCR lifetime, the Cost Manual does www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-107/ not recommend a lifetime for an SCR, Region 9), dated 7/21/10, concerning the SRP issue-5/features/uniqueness-of-scr-retrofits- Navajo Generating Station SCR cost estimate. translates-into-broad-cost-variations.html. but rather sets out a calculation example 32 70 FR 39104, 39166. 39 Escalated from $145/kW: ($145/kw) (560.3/ that uses a lifetime of 20 years. In fact, 33 Id. at 39168. 401.7)–$202/kW. Chemical Engineering, April 2011. this same calculation makes many other

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52402 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

assumptions that we felt were not Response: The specific items in during which the unit did not have any applicable to SJGS and if used anyway, dispute are discussed elsewhere in our emissions at all because it was offline. would have resulted in lower cost response to comments. The information Response: We agree with this estimates, but which were not used in provided in the ‘‘Cost Analysis Manual comment that our proposed NOX our analysis. Commentary’’ and additionally emission limit should be based on The lifetime of an SCR, which is a provided to NMED and us explains how BODs, rather than a straight calendar metal frame packed with catalyst B&V extrapolated costs that it estimated average. In response to this comment, modules, is equal to the lifetime of the from other facilities to apply to SJGS. we have reanalyzed our proposed boiler, which might easily be over 60 The alleged unique, site-specific determination that the units of the SJGS years. The lifetime of a retrofit SCR is constraints at SJGS, that would justify can achieve a NOX emission limit of generally set equal to the remaining extrapolating costs from these other 0.05 lbs/MMBtu on a continuous basis, useful life of the facility. The record is facilities, the St. Johns River Power using the BOD concept. We have done silent on the remaining useful life of the Project, which burns coke, and Harding this because we believe the same metric SJGS units. Further, USGS studies of the Street, were never explained. The should be used to both determine BART coal reserves upon which the SJGS record, for example, does not contain and to determine compliance with relies indicate that the local coal supply any structural steel and duct layout BART. The results of that analysis are is adequate to support a remaining drawings to justify this high presented in response to another useful life of 30 years.40 Many utilities contingency and other factors, nor does comment. In summary, we continue to routinely specify 30+ year lifetimes in it contain vendor quotes specific to believe that NOX BART for the units of requests for proposal and to evaluate SJGS’s coal and site constraints. In fact, the SJGS is an emission limit of 0.05 proposals. In fact, an analysis prepared as noted elsewhere, we specifically lbs/MMBtu. We have concluded that by B&V for another facility assumed a asked PNM to document site specific emission limit should be based on a 30- 40 year SCR lifetime.41 And finally, constraints but they did not respond. day BOD rolling average based on any Sargent & Lundy assumed a design life operation in a given day counting of 30 years 42 for the nearby Navajo B. Comments on Our Proposed NOX toward the average. We believe that Generating Station which burns a BART Emission Limits averaging scheme complies with the similar coal. We conclude there is We received a significant number of BART Guidelines, which defines a BOD nothing in the record to support a 20 comments concerning our proposed to be ‘‘any 24-hour period between year lifetime for the SCR and believe a NOX BART emission limit of 0.05 lbs/ 12:00 midnight and the following 30 year lifetime is justified. MMBtu for the SJGS. We have midnight during which any fuel is Comment: EPA also justifies its summarized our responses to these combusted at any time at the steam refusal to consider additional line items comments, but refer the reader to our generating unit.’’ 44 outside the scope of the Cost Manual on Complete Response to Comments for Comment: The U.S. Forest Service the grounds that ‘‘PNM had provided no NM Regional Haze/Visibility Transport (USFS) expressed its support of our documentation regarding unique FIP document for more detail. NOX BART emission limit of 0.05 lb/ circumstances related to the BART Comment: PNM stated the BART limit MMBtu. The USFS believe this emission determinations.’’ That claim is should not be based on daily averages limit is adequate and will improve incorrect. EPA’s own analysis cites the of thirty (30) calendar days, as we visibility at Class I areas throughout the documentation PNM submitted to proposed, because it believes it would Four Corners region. Additionally, the demonstrate the unique circumstances be inconsistent with the BART USFS feels SCR has already been at SJGS, referred to by EPA as B&V’s Guidelines. If calendar days are used, determined to be BART at several other ‘‘Cost Analysis Manual Commentary.’’ they argue, the average could include as coal-fired power plants across the That document was a response to the little as one hour of operation if the unit United States. cost analysis that was initially prepared Response: We agree with the USFS. is offline for an outage that lasts longer Comment: EPA predetermined the by NMED in March 2008 as a response than thirty days because the first hour to follow-up questions from NMED cost-effectiveness of SCR at SJGS of operation would be the only data ‘‘assuming an outlet NO of 0.05 lb/ regarding the BART determination for recorded in the last thirty calendar days. X SJGS. In addition, PNM also provided MMBtu.’’ EPA then proposed that Instead, PNM requested that we assumed rate as the BART emission significant evidence of the site-specific consider changing ‘‘calendar days’’ to challenges directly to EPA in response limit for SJGS. EPA’s assumption is boiler operating days (BODs) which are unfounded—the installation of SCRs at to its questions over the several months days in which the unit ran for at least during which EPA prepared its BART SJGS will not enable the units to one hour. That approach would be achieve 0.05 lb/MMBtu on a continuous determination for SJGS. Thus, the consistent with the BART Guidelines, assertion by EPA that PNM has failed to basis. As such, the proposed 0.05 lb/ which include the following advice to MMBtu limit cannot be BART for SJGS. sufficiently document the site-specific states: challenges at SJGS is incorrect. Response: We disagree with this For EGUS, specify an averaging time of a comment. We initially estimated the

40 30-day rolling average, and contain a cost effectiveness of SCR, assuming an Gretchen K. Hoffman and Glen E. Jones, Coal definition of ‘‘boiler operating day’’ that is Availability Study—Fruitland Formation in the outlet NOX of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, to Fruitland and Navajo Fields, Northwest New consistent with the definition in the provide a direct comparison with B&V’s Mexico, USGS Open-File 464, January 24, 2002, proposed revisions to the NSPS for utility analysis. Following this, we determined Available at: http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/ boilers in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da.43 openfile/downloads/ofr400-499/451-475/464/ that a BART emission limit of 0.05 lb/ ofr_464.pdf. The BOD would ensure that, when an MMBtu was appropriate and then 41 E-mail from O’Brien to Van Helvoirt, outage occurs, the emissions following refined the cost effectiveness on that September 28, 2004, Re: Cost Impact, WPS–011904 startup will be averaged with the basis. The BART level of 0.05 lb/MMBtu at WPS–011905. emissions data from before the outage, was selected based on an examination of 42 8/17/10 Salt River Project Navajo Generating rather than with the period of time Station Units 1, 2, 3 SCR and Baghouse Capital Cost continuous emission monitoring Estimate Report (S&L Navajo Cost Analysis), Appendix A, p. 6, Sec. 1.7. 43 70 FR 49104, 39172. 44 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52403

systems (CEMS) data for existing units do so on a continuous basis. Thus, the our cost evaluation report, which was operating with retrofit SCRs, as we commenter claims, if the units cited by incorporated into our proposal’s TSD. In explain elsewhere in our response to us were in fact subject to a 0.05 lb/ summary, that report contained a comments. MMBtu emission limit, those limits previous study of SCR performance Comment: In contrast to EPA’s NOX would have been violated many times at during the ozone season for the period emission limit assumption of 0.05 lbs/ each unit. 2003–2006. This study showed that MMBtu, B&V, who has extensive Response: We disagree with this several units were achieving a NOX practical experience in actually comment and continue to believe that emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu at that designing and installing retrofit SCRs the NOX emission limit we proposed for time to meet NOX SIP Call regulations determined that a retrofit SCR would the four units of the SJGS, 0.05 lbs/ that were then in force. These SCRs only only be capable of achieving 0.07 lb/ MMBtu, is achievable on a continuous operated from May to October of each MMBtu on a continuous basis, basis. In reaching this conclusion, we year, the ozone season. The SCRs were particularly if required to use the low- followed the language in the BART bypassed during the remainder of the oxidation catalyst assumed by EPA to Guidelines: year as they were not required to meet minimize ancillary emission increases It is important, however, that in analyzing the NO SIP Call. associated with SCR. X the technology you take into account the PNM presents graphs for each of the Response: We do not believe the most stringent emission control level that the claim that B&V ‘‘determined that a technology is capable of achieving. You ozone season 2003–2006 units for the retrofit SCR would only be capable of should consider recent regulatory decisions period January 2008 to November 2010. achieving 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a and performance data (e.g., manufacturer’s These graphs suggest that 0.05 lb/ continuous basis * * *’’ is supported in data, engineering estimates and the MMBtu is exceeded on numerous the record by any calculations or experience of other sources) when occasions and imply this was due to a arrangement drawings. Rather, the 0.07 identifying an emissions performance level limitation of the equipment to maintain lb/MMBtu value is simply stated in the or levels to evaluate. control. However, these graphs appear initial June 6, 2007 B&V BART analysis In assessing the capability of the control to be based on calendar operating days. without any explanation as to how it alternative, latitude exists to consider special circumstances pertinent to the specific This distinction is significant, as the was determined or why 0.07 lb/MMBtu source under review, or regarding the prior BOD convention discussed by the BART satisfies BART rather than a lower application of the control alternative. Guidelines 47 smoothes out the 30-day limit.45 The basis for this limit has been However, you should explain the basis for rolling average outage spikes. Also, questioned by NMED, the NPS and us choosing the alternate level (or range) of these charts include large blocks of time since July 2007, but we do not believe control in the BART analysis. Without a during which the SCRs were turned off that PNM has provided adequate showing of differences between the source because they were not required under supporting analysis. We do not view an and other sources that have achieved more stringent emissions limits, you should the trading programs then in force. unsupported statement, such as this, Lastly, these charts connect the dots questioned on the record by many conclude that the level being achieved by those other sources is representative of the across outage periods, when the SCRs parties and inconsistent with retrofit achievable level for the source being are not in use and improperly include SCR experience at numerous facilities, analyzed.46 the zero hour days in the averages at to be sufficient to support a BART elevated levels. determination of 0.07 lb/MMBtu. First, we examined ‘‘the most We note the NOX design basis was stringent emission control level that To address this, we analyzed data 0.05 lbs/MMBtu for the SCR retrofit for technology [SCR] is capable of from EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division the nearby Navajo Generating Station, a achieving.’’ As demonstrated below, we (CAMD), which compiles CEMS data facility of a similar age that burns a concluded that SCR is capable of reported under various trading similar coal, with a more constrained achieving a NOX emission limit of 0.05 programs. We analyzed the NOX CEMS site. As explained elsewhere in our lbs/MMBtu. Second, we examined the data for the period 2009–2010 to response to comments, we present data record to determine if there existed identify the best performing retrofit that demonstrates that retrofit SCR ‘‘special circumstances pertinent to the units that operate year-round. We installations are capable of achieving a specific source under review’’ that ranked the annual average NOX NOX limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu on a would prevent the units of the SJGS emissions for all units in the database continuous basis. Therefore, we believe from achieving this limit, and found for the years 2009 and 2010 from the the statement that a retrofit SCR would none. Third, concluding there was no lowest to the highest NOX emissions. only be capable of achieving 0.07 lb/ ‘‘showing of differences between the We then selected those facilities that MMBtu on a continuous basis, is source and other sources that have had at least one unit in the top 30 group factually incorrect. achieved more stringent emissions in both years to identify retrofits Comment: Several commenters stated limits’’ that would preclude the achieving best performance. that our claim that many facilities are application of this limit, we We then developed a spreadsheet using SCR to actually achieve lower ‘‘conclude[d] that the level being program that used the CAMD data and emission rates than 0.07 lb/MMBtu achieved by those other sources is calculated and graphed three types of (including the Havana Unit 9, Amos representative of the achievable level for Units 1 and 2, Chesterfield Unit 6, the source being analyzed.’’ The 30-day rolling averages for most of these Cardinal Units 2 and 3, Colbert Unit 5, following discussion expands on these best performing units, plus those Ghent Units 3 and 4, and Mill Creek points. additional units graphed by PNM for the Unit 3) is incorrect. This commenter In our Complete Response to period 2008–2010 for the Ozone states that while these units have shown Comments for NM Regional Haze/ Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) the ability to reach 0.05 lb/MMBtu or Visibility Transport FIP document, we units and 2006–2010 for the Texas units lower at times, those units are unable to provide a detailed discussion of why we (Parish 7, 8). All of the units we believe the commenter, PNM, misquotes analyzed were retrofitted with SCR. 45 6/7/07 B&V BART Analysis, Table ES–2, Table 2–3, Table 6–1, 7–1. 46 70 FR 39104, 39166. 47 Id. at 39172.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52404 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

As Exhibit 2 shows,48 the averaging acceptance tests indicate that they can analysis also indicates there are a few conventions we used are: (1) A operate at design levels, or 0.03 lb/ SCR retrofits that have demonstrated the conventional 30-day calendar rolling MMBtu. This is evidenced by ability to do this on the basis of a 30 day average; (2) a 30-day BOD rolling examination of an excerpt from the BOD average. The commenter’s average based on any operation in a hourly NOX data for Parish Unit 8, contractor has presented monthly given day counting toward the average; which typically operates at a 30-day emission data for a number of units and (3) a 30-day BOD rolling average rolling average of about 0.044 lb/MMBtu which appear to indicate that some are based on only full 24-hour days. We and was run for extended periods at occasionally able to meet monthly believe that averaging scheme (2) 0.03 lb/MMBtu from August 5, 2006 to emission limits below 0.05 lbs/MMBtu. complies with the BART Guidelines, September 20, 2009 and then at 0.035 The Havana 9 unit is particularly which defines a BOD to be ‘‘any 24-hour lb/MMBtu from September 21, 2006 to highlighted, which appears to indicate period between 12:00 midnight and the December 1, 2006 to demonstrate its that unit has even met such a limit for 50 following midnight during which any capability. In other words, lower NOX perhaps 4–5 months at a time. However, fuel is combusted at any time at the emissions are achievable from the in our view, we conclude this is not steam generating unit.’’ 49 existing fleet of SCR-equipped units enough time to demonstrate that the The Havana Unit 9 data shows that it than are reflected by a simple units of the SJGS are able to meet a NOX has operated under 0.05 lbs/MMBtu examination of the CAMD data. limit of 0.035 lbs/MMBtu on the basis from mid-2009 to the end of 2010 on a Comment: A commenter states that of a 30 day rolling average year round. continuous basis. In fact, this unit has while the proposed NOX limit of 0.05 We further agree that it may be operated under 0.035 lbs/MMBtu for lbs/MMBtu as BART for SJGS would technically feasible, considering both much of that time. The Parish Unit 7 significantly reduce NOX emissions vendor performance guarantees, and the data shows that it has operated under from the SJGS and have a positive data discussed above, for some SCR 0.05 lbs/MMBtu from mid-2006 to mid impact on visibility and public health, retrofits to reliably meet an NOX limit of 2010 on a continuous basis. In fact, this a lower NOX limit of 0.035 lbs/MMBtu 0.035 lbs/MMBtu on a 30 day rolling unit has operated for months at is not only technically feasible, but average (especially if figured on the approximately 0.035 lbs/MMBtu, and legally-required for SJGS under the basis of a BOD). However, we see no for approximately 2 years at CAA. The commenter points to our data, presented either by the commenter approximately 0.04 lbs/MMBtu. The proposal language that the State of New or from our own research,51 which we Parish Unit 8 data show that it has Mexico ‘‘noted the potential for greater have discussed elsewhere in our operated almost continuously under control rates as low as 0.03 lbs/MMBtu’’ response to comments, which would 0.045 lbs/MMBtu since the beginning of for SJGS. This commenter references our lead us to conclude that such a limit has 2006. Other units’ data show months of TSD for the proposed FIP, that SCR been sufficiently demonstrated in continuous operation below 0.05 lbs/ technologies ‘‘are routinely designed practice. MMBtu. We believe this data and have routinely achieved a NOX To our knowledge, there are no air demonstrates that similar coal fired control efficiency of 90%.’’ Therefore, permits in the U.S. that require that a units that have been retrofitted with assuming a 90% removal efficiency, NOX emission limit of 0.035 lbs/MMBtu SCRs are capable of achieving NOX based on SJGS’s current rate of be met for a coal-fired unit such as SJGS emission limits of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu on a emissions (under 0.30 lbs/MMBtu), the with retrofitted SCRs on the basis of a continuous basis. commenter concludes modern SCR 30 day rolling average. Furthermore, the In addition, it is important to note technology would bring controlled existence of a permit limit is not the that most of the NOX CEMS data in the emissions down to 0.03 lbs/MMBtu. The only indicator of the technical CAMD database is generated under cap commenter proposed an emission limit feasibility of achieving a particular and trade programs, such as the Acid of 0.035 lbs/MMBtu, based on a report emission limit. However, its absence, Rain Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule performed by its own contractor. This combined with no documented instance (CAIR), and the NOX SIP Call or to report includes vendor guarantees for of an SCR retrofit achieving this level of comply with elevated permit limits, 90% controls, and presents information control on a continuous basis, causes us such as from netting out of NSR review. that an emission limit of 0.035 lbs/ to conclude that a 30 day rolling average Therefore, these reporting units are not MMBtu is being achieved at other units. NOX emission limit of 0.035 lbs/MMBtu subject to regulatory requirements that The commenter further states that we for the units of the SJGS is not BART. compel the continuous operation of must present specific circumstances to Comment: The NPS and the USFS SCRs to achieve best available NOX preclude the application of this separately stated they believe PNM has reductions. Consequently, a simple emission limit. Lastly, the commenter underestimated the ability of SCR to examination of the raw data will not makes a case that, the feasibility of a reduce emissions. For example, the NPS always by itself reveal the NOX lower NOX emission limit aside, the states that B&V assumed that SCR could reduction these limits are capable of additional costs associated with achieve 0.05 lbs/MMBtu (annual achieving. achieving such a limit, weighed against average) when evaluating retrofitting of This is demonstrated by the Parish the additional mass of NOX that would SCR at the Craig power plant in units in Texas, which are likely the best be removed, make such a limit cost Colorado. Both the NPS and the USFS performing SCR units over the long effective. stated that EPA’s Clean Air Markets term. The units operate to maintain a Response: We have reviewed the data, and vendor guarantees show that system wide cap, rather than to meet information presented in the SCR can typically meet 0.05 lb/MMBtu unit by unit limits. The Parish results commenter’s contractor’s report. As we (or lower) on an annual average basis. may not, therefore, reflect the maximum discuss elsewhere in our response to The USFS stated NOX emissions can be capacity of the SCRs to reduce the comments, we agree there are SCR reduced by 90% with SCR installed at plants’ NOX emissions. The Parish SCR retrofits that are meeting NOX emission 0.05 lbs/MMBtu emission limit. The limits below 0.05 lbs/MMBtu. Our NPS included data it claims indicates 48 Exhibit 2, Best Performing SCR Retrofit Installations, June 8, 2011. 50 We examine this data excerpt in detail in our 51 Exhibit 2, 30 Day Rolling Averages for Selected 49 70 FR 39104, 39172. Complete Response to Comments document. Best Performing SCR Retrofit Installations.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52405

that SCR can achieve year-round emissions reductions achievable with consent decree deadline, we do not have emissions of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu or lower at the addition of SCR. However, we draw the time to construct the algorithm that 26 coal-fired EGUs, eleven of which are a distinction between units that have could be used to guarantee practical dry-bottom, wall-fired units like SJGS. met an emission limit of 0.05 lbs/ enforceability. Therefore, as we discuss The USFS also referenced this data. The MMBtu and those that have reliably elsewhere in our response to comments, NPS believes PNM has not provided any demonstrated the ability to we condition the NOX limit for the units documentation or justification to continuously meet that emission limit. of the SJGS on the basis of a rolling 30 support the higher values used in its Therefore, although we agree there are day BOD average. We leave the issue of analyses. They also present information many SCR installations that are capable a plant wide average to a possible future from industry sources that supports of meeting an annual NOX emission SIP revision that includes a verifiable, their understanding that SCR can limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu, we extended workable and enforceable algorithm that achieve 90% reduction and reduce our analysis. As we discuss elsewhere ensures the resulting emissions are emissions to 0.05 lb/MMBtu or lower on in our response to comments, we also equal to those reductions that would be coal-fired boilers. analyzed the ability of some of the better obtained by simply controlling each of Response: We agree with the NPS that controlled SCR retrofits to meet this the BART-eligible units that constitute PNM has underestimated the ability of same limit on a 30 BOD average and BART-eligible source. SCR to reduce emissions. As discussed found that it was feasible for the SJGS Comment: One commenter requested elsewhere in our response to comments, to do so. we exclude emissions occurring during we are requiring that the units of the Comment: EPA proposes to require startup, shutdown, and malfunctions SJGS meet an emission limit of 0.05 lbs/ the SJGS to meet a NOX emission limit events from having to comply with our MMBtu on the basis of a 30 day rolling of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu individually at each proposed NOX limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu BOD average. of the plant’s four units. EPA’s own because post-combustion controls Comment: PNM requested that we BART rules, however, expressly equipment such as SCRs cannot operate reevaluate the cost effectiveness of SCRs authorize application of BART emission effectively during those events. at SJGS because they feel that our limits on a plant wide basis, and the Alternatively, this commenter requested proposed NOX emission limit of 0.05 proposal offers no justification for we consider setting a different standard lbs/MMBtu on the basis of a 30 day deviating from that established and that is more representative of the rolling average is not achievable. They reasonable practice. Because it makes no emission characteristics of the units reason that we therefore overestimated difference, in terms of visibility impact during those events or consider the emission reductions that the SCRs or visibility improvement, as to which requiring work practice standards to would achieve, thus underestimating unit or units within a facility the minimize such emissions. Another the cost per ton of pollutant removed. In emissions—or the emission commenter requested that we addition, they requested we reevaluate reductions—occur at, there is no specifically include startups and the visibility improvement that it rational basis for the Agency to preclude shutdowns in this language, making assumed the SCRs would provide. They the plant wide averaging that is clear that any emission in excess of an reason that at a higher NOX emission contemplated in EPA’s own BART rules. applicable emission limit during any limit, the SCRs would not achieve Response: The commenter correctly such event constitutes a violation of the nearly the level of visibility notes that the BART Guidelines state applicable emission limit. That improvement that we expect. that the BART determining authority commenter also requested that we Response: As explained elsewhere in ‘‘should consider allowing sources to clarify that this provision applies to all our response to comments, we believe ‘average’ emissions across any set of pollutants controlled by this FIP, the units of the SJGS can achieve a NOX BART-eligible emission units within a including, NOX, SO2, H2SO4, ammonia, emission limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu on the fenceline, so long as the emission and particulate matter (PM). basis of a 30 day BOD average. reductions from each pollutant being Response: As we have discussed in Therefore, we do not believe there is controlled for BART would be equal to our response to other comments, we are any need to revise either the visibility those reductions that would be obtained changing the rolling averaging period modeling or the cost analysis on that by simply controlling each of the BART- for our proposed NOX emission limit of basis. eligible units that constitute BART- 0.05 lbs/MMBtu from one based on 30 Comment: The USFS feels that PNM eligible source.’’ 52 calendar days, to one based on a 30 has underestimated the achievable As we discuss elsewhere in our BODs. The CEMS data indicate that our emission limit that would result with response to comments, we received proposed NOX BART limit can be Low-NOX burners with overfire air, another comment requesting that we achieved without separately limiting combined with SCR. Based on data from revise our proposed NOX BART limit, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. EPA’s Clean Air Markets, SCR usually which was calculated on the basis of a Further, the startup, shutdown, and meets an annual average emission limit rolling 30 day calendar average, and malfunction events cited in this of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu or lower. Based on adopt instead a limit calculated on the comment are a characteristic of current the same data, 26 electric generating basis of a rolling 30 day BOD average. SCR operating modes, i.e., under trading units have met this emission limit, We agree, and are finalizing our action programs with no incentive to optimize eleven of which are similar in design as in accordance with that request. design and operation to achieve a the SJGS. NOX emissions can be Combining a plant wide average with a permit limit. These spikes result when reduced by 90% with SCR installed at BOD average in which individual units flue gas temperatures fall below the 0.05 lbs/MMBtu emission limit. Given may be on different 30 day periods, operating temperature range of the SCR the SJGS’s size and amount of NOX adds an additional level of complexity catalyst, or when the ammonia injection emissions, a more stringent emission to the calculation of a plant wide system malfunctions. We believe that limit than PNM’s proposal is not only average. We believe it is possible to startup and shutdown spikes are achievable, but it will provide for integrate the 30 day BOD and plant minimized by using the BOD metric, greater reduction in NOX emissions. wide averaging concepts, but due to our which we assume was why it was Response: We agree with the USFS requested that we employ it. As there is that PNM has underestimated the 52 70 FR, 39104, 39172. no explicit provision for the exclusion

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52406 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

of start up, shut down, or malfunction We disagree with the statement that an SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu events for NOX, SO2, and H2SO4, all data our conclusions regarding NOX BART does not reflect the level of emissions will be used in determining compliance for the SJGS are far different from those reductions achievable under BART for with this limit. As explained elsewhere that have been made in other states in wet limestone scrubbers. This in our response to comments, we are not determining NOX BART for other commenter also points out that the units setting an emission for PM for the units electric generating units. As the of the SJGS are all currently achieving of the SJGS at this time, and we have commenter’s own table indicates, other SO2 limits significantly under 0.15 lbs/ determined that neither an ammonia states and EPA regions have made NOX MMBtu on a 30 day rolling average and limit, nor ammonia monitoring is BART determinations that will be met concludes we should not set SO2 warranted. We do not see a need to or are proposed to be met with the emission rates in a Section 110 FIP that further clarify that the limits we are addition of SCR, including the Four exceed the historic SO2 emission rates at finalizing must be continuously met. Corners Power Plant (EPA Region 9), SJGS. The commenter requests that if We also agree with the comment that Hayden Units 1 & 2 (CO), Otter Tail Big we do set a non-BART SO2 limit in our work practice standards should be Stone 1 (although this is a cyclone Section 110 FIP, we set unit-specific developed and used to minimize such boiler) (SD), and Naughton Unit 2. limits at least consistent with the recent emissions. These should include Also, we initially note two points historic SO2 emission identified in the proactive measures such as SCR reactor regarding the costs of the controls, while table above, or issue formal SO2.BART preheating during a cold start; selecting accepting the values listed on the chart determinations for each unit at SJGS catalyst to maximize ramp rates and at face value. First, the cost effectiveness under a Section 308 FIP. NO reduction at low temperatures; and of all the BART controls, which X Response: We believe the SO use of both tunable ammonia injection depending on the facility range from 2 emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu is grids (AIGs) and static mixers. We combustion (e.g., OFA, LNB) to post appropriate to meet the requirements of encourage PNM to develop and employ combustion (e.g., SCR, SNCR), are section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to ensure that those measures. frequently much worse (more these emissions from SJGS will not Comment: PNM contends our expensive) than the cost effectiveness interfere with visibility in other states. conclusions differ greatly from those we calculated for SCR on the units of As discussed in our proposal, we that have been made in other states in the SJGS. Second, the cost effectiveness believe that emissions reductions determining NOX BART for other values listed for SCR, are frequently consistent with the assumptions used in electric generating units. PNM similar to the cost effectiveness we the WRAP modeling will ensure that submitted a table of the other NOX calculated for SCR on the units of the BART determinations that have been SJGS (especially if compared to our emissions from New Mexico sources do made by 13 different states as they have revised cost effectiveness). not interfere with the measures developed the proposed RH SIPs that Lastly, although we strive to ensure designed to protect visibility in other are awaiting EPA approval. PNM stated that the regulated community is treated states. We are aware that the SO2 that in comparison to the equitably with regard to the RHR, the controls currently installed on the SJGS determinations made by every other nature of the BART five factor analysis are in fact achieving greater control than state, the EPA proposal concludes that is designed to consider site-specific would be evidenced by an emission SJGS must be required to install, (i) the issues. For instance, we note that the limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. The most effective SCR in the nation, (ii) at chart does not contain any information, commenter’s observation of the SJGS’s the cheapest price, and (iii) in the nor is any presented elsewhere, current SO2 emissions simply means shortest amount of time. PNM concerning a visibility impact analysis. that the SO2 emissions from the SJGS concludes that if our proposal is a true As required by the BART Guidelines, are better controlled than what we indication of our interpretation of the this must be included in a BART require to prevent interference with RH program, we will be faced with analysis.53 Without such an analysis, visibility under section disapproving every other state RH there is no way to justify any control 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We agree with the implementation plan in the country and even if it has a very low cost. commenter that the 0.15 lbs/MMBtu replacing those plans with FIPs. Conversely, even controls that have emission limit does not reflect the level Response: As explained in our either a relatively high capital cost or of emissions reductions achievable responses to other comments, we have cost effectiveness in terms of dollars per through the use of a wet limestone made adjustments in our NOX BART ton may be justified if they result in a scrubber and that a source specific determination for the SJGS that pertain significant visibility benefit. In the case BART determination for the SJGS might to this comment. We have adjusted our of the SJGS, our BART FIP NOX well result in a determination requiring cost basis for the installation of SCR on emission limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu is the installation of scrubber to meet a the units of the SJGS, which slightly predicted to result in a combined more stringent limitation. We did not increased the cost of the controls versus visibility improvement on 16 Class I propose to address the BART the tonnage of NOX removed. In areas of 21.69 dv, which we consider requirements for SO2 from the SJGS in addition, we have modified the very significant. this action because SJGS will not be schedule for compliance with the installing new control equipment to emission limits to now require C. Comments on Our Proposed SO2 meet the 0.15 lbs/MMBtu emission compliance within 5 years—rather than Emission Limit limits. As a result, the issue of requiring 3 years—from the effective date of our Comment: One commenter stated an different capital expenditures to meet final rule. Also discussed in our SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu on the requirements of section responses to other comments, although a 30 day rolling average is not 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as compared to those we find that our proposed NOX BART appropriate and does not ensure that of the RH program’s BART requirement emission limit should remain at 0.05 SO2 emissions from SJGS will not does not arise. Since we did not propose lbs/MMBtu, we have modified the interfere with visibility in New Mexico the SO2 emission rate under the RHR averaging time from a straight 30 day or other states. This commenter believes requirements, the comments concerning calendar rolling average, to a 30 day BART are outside the scope of this BOD average. 53 70 FR 39104, 39163. action.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52407

Comment: In declining to find that its This commenter also noted that ozone remains significantly lower than that asserted SO2 limits satisfy BART, EPA’s concentrations in parks in the Four estimated by NMED and is a minimal proposal improperly relies on a RH Corners region approach the current level of sulfuric acid emissions. Based trading program under 40 CFR 51.309 health standards, and likely violate on these updated calculations and in that does not yet exist. Putting aside anticipated lower standards. In fact, response to comments, we are requiring EPA’s legal obligation to make a formal ozone levels in many parts of New the SJGS to meet an H2SO4 emission BART determination in its proposed FIP Mexico, Colorado, and Utah are already limit of 2.6 ×10¥4 lb/MMBtu. at this time, any emissions trading in the range of ozone levels deemed to Our intention in our proposal program that is proposed to replace a be harmful to human health. regarding the regulation and monitoring BART limit ‘‘must achieve greater Response: We agree that the same of ammonia was, like H2SO4, to reasonable progress than would be pollutants that contribute to visibility minimize the contribution of this achieved through the installation and impairment can also harm public compound to visibility impairment. operation of BART.’’ 40 CFR health. Although we note public health After careful consideration of the 51.308(e)(2). Because EPA cannot make benefits, we did not rely on these comments we received concerning our the required demonstration that New benefits in establishing controls proposal to require the SJGS to meet an Mexico’s future, theoretical trading necessary to meet BART in today’s hourly average emission limit of 2.0 program will be ‘‘better than BART,’’ action. parts ppmvd for ammonia, we have EPA is illegally sidestepping its current Comment: One commenter expressed determined that neither an ammonia BART obligations under 40 CFR 51.308 support for our proposed H2SO4 and limit, nor ammonia monitoring is (e)(2)(i). ammonia limits proposal for the SJGS, appropriate. Instead, we will approach Response: We disagree with the and the corresponding installation of the issue of the impact of ammonia slip commenter. In accordance with our CEMS. That commenter also urged us to on visibility impairment though proper proposal, we are finalizing SO2 set the H2SO4 emission rate at the upfront design, rather than after-the-fact × ¥4 limitations under section lowest rate of 1.06 10 lb/MMBtu for regulation. We are requiring that the NO 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), not under the RHR. each unit at the SJGS, suggesting stack control device (presumably, but not We disagree with commenter’s view that test monitoring for H2SO4 on a more required to be SCR) must be designed to we are sidestepping our BART frequent basis than annual monitoring. achieve a NO emission limit of 0.05 The commenter also supported our X obligations by not proposing to establish lbs/MMBtu on a rolling 30 BOD basis proposed ammonia emission limit at the SO2 BART emission limits. Our with an ammonia slip of 2.0 ppm. We lower range of 2.0 ppm, with CEMS. rationale for not proposing BART believe this strikes the proper balance Further, this commenter requested we requirements for SO2 in this action between the additional cost of ammonia clarify these emission limits are appears in our response just prior to this monitoring and reporting and the need required under the RH program as part comment. Moreover, we note that the to have a reasonable expectation of the of a BART determination for the facility established SO2 limits do not rely upon amount of ammonia emitted by the a nonexistent trading program. We will and must be complied with within 3 SJGS. address New Mexico’s obligation to years of the date of the final rule. Lastly, The H SO emission limit is being address SO under the RHR in a future we were requested to set a BART PM 2 4 2 required under the RH program as part separate action. emission limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu on a 6-hour block average, and a 10% opacity of a BART determination for the SJGS

D. Comments on Our Proposed H2SO4 limit at each unit at SJGS, also within and must be complied with at the same and Ammonia Emission Limits and 3 years of the date of the final rule. time as the NOx limits for each unit. Other Pollutants Another commenter questioned our With regard to the commenter’s request Comment: The League of Women authority to regulate ammonia through that if emission monitors are truly Voters, Montezuma County, Colorado the RH rule. unavailable for this pollutant, we supports the EPA determination that Response: should require stack test monitoring for SCR is cost-effective for all units of the In our response to comments on the H2SO4 on a more frequent basis than SJGS. They defer to our judgment on the assumed ammonia slip level used to annual monitoring, we do not believe proposed final limit for sulfuric acid estimate sulfuric acid emissions, we that an adequate continuous emissions emissions. They request that we choose have recalculated the expected sulfuric monitor is available for H2SO4 and will the lower limit of 2 ppmvd, adjusted to acid emissions rate with no ammonia continue to rely on stack testing. We do 6 percent oxygen for the regulation of slip. The sulfuric acid emission rate was not agree that more frequent stack ¥ ammonia emissions. Their justification recalculated to be 2.6 ×10 4 lb/MMBtu testing is appropriate, due to a for this request is the deterioration in based on an ammonia slip value of 0 consideration of the cost of that testing visibility at Class I areas such as Mesa ppm, compared to our original value of in comparison to the value of having a ¥ Verde National Park, and the imperative 1.06 ×10 4 lb/MMBtu at 2ppm greater certainty of the H2SO4 emissions to achieve improvements in visibility as ammonia slip. The actual ammonia slip that may result. As we discussed in our rapidly as possible. will vary over the life of a catalyst layer. proposal,54 we have concluded that the Response: We appreciate the support We conclude an assumption of low sulfur coal burned at the SJGS of the League of Women Voters, ammonia slip up to 2.0 ppm as the generates very little sulfur trioxide Montezuma County, Colorado. As catalyst ages is reasonable for an SCR (SO3), and hence H2SO4, which is explained elsewhere, we have system that is designed to achieve a formed when SO3 combines with water determined that neither an ammonia NOX emission limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu in the flue gas to form H2SO4. In limit, nor ammonia monitoring is on a rolling 30 BOD basis, considering addition, SCR catalysts are available warranted. the coal the SJGS burns. We also note with a low SO2 to SO3 conversion of Comment: One commenter stated the PNM assumed an ammonia slip of 2.0 0.5%, further limiting the production of same pollutants, including PM 2.5, ppm in its SCR cost estimation. As the H2SO4. Therefore, we conclude we have NOX, and VOCs (contributing to ground ammonia slip increases, the sulfuric struck the right balance. level ozone) that contribute to visibility acid emissions will decrease. This impairment also harm public health. revised sulfuric acid emission rate 54 76 FR 499.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52408 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

E. Comments on the Emission Limit concludes the site congestion and other design and install the 14 SCRs in its Compliance Schedule site-specific challenges at SJGS will sample (compared to 18–69 months for Comment: We received a number of demand an implementation schedule the 9 facilities (greater than 33 units) in comments both for and against our that is similar to SCR installations at our sample). The average design/build proposal to require compliance with our Units 6 and 7 of First Energy’s Sammis time for the units in the report is 43 proposed emission limits within three facility, which required 60 and 62 months, compared to an average of 37 years following the effective date of our months to complete, respectively. months for our retrofit SCR timeframes. final action. The League of Women Response: We have decided, based on None of the units in these two Voters, Montezuma County, Colorado our review of several comments, to collections overlap. We agree, based on opposed extending the deadline to five finalize a schedule for compliance with the information we have from the site, years for achieving the proposed the emission limits of 5 years—rather that site congestion will require a longer total installation time for all four units emission limits. They stated SCR was than 3 years—from the effective date of than the average found in both of these first patented in the U.S. in 1957 and our final rule. We view the B&V cost collections. Please see our Complete has been an operational pollution analysis as being a very preliminary, Response to Comments for NM Regional control technology for over 30 years at low-level estimate, that is missing much Haze/Visibility Transport FIP document large scale facilities like the SJGS. They of the information required to develop for more detail concerning our response believe allowing an extra two years may a site-specific schedule. This estimate to this question. provide the opportunity for ambiguity does not include, for example, plot However, we do not believe there is and technological changes to enter into plans, a diagram showing SCR layout, a basis in the record for concluding that arguments about engineering solutions an analysis of constructability, installation of SCRs would require a and controls, which potentially could construction site plan, or an timeframe as long as claimed for feed appeals and litigation by the implementation schedule, which are Sammis Units 6 and 7. The seven operator of the SJGS, and thus delay required to develop a site-specific Sammis units were subject to an cleanup efforts. The Navajo Nation schedule. Thus, we selected an average enforcement action,57 and the SCRs expressed concern that the proposed compliance time, based on a review of were installed pursuant to a Consent compliance schedule is too stringent for a number of sources, including the Decree.58 The Consent Decree allowed SJGS to reasonably meet and could following: • 13 months for 675 MW Somerset 5+ years, from the date of the Decree in result in a reduction-in-force of a Station; March 2005, to install SCR on two units, significant number of employees, • 18 months for Harding Street; SNCR on five units, low NO burners, including Navajo workers, thereby X • 19 months for two 900 MW units at and new SO scrubbers on seven units. contributing to family hardships and 2 Keystone. Construction was completed faster than limiting the ability of affected • 26 months for Asheville Power the Consent Decree schedule, however, employees, contractors, and Station with a reported normal range of and all of the controls were operating by subcontractors to meet their financial 27 to 30 months. May 2010. obligations. • 30 months for 4 units based on 21 The Sammis retrofit project at this Another commenter asked if there is months typical for 1 unit, each 2,200 MW plant is generally recognized a smarter way to phase the installation additional unit at same facility adds 2– as the largest air quality control retrofit of controls over a longer period of time. 3 months. Findings for typical in the history of the United States and Another commenter stated any installations.55 is considered to be ‘‘the most difficult proposed truncation of the five-year • 36 months for St John River Power in the country because of the extremely compliance period should be Park, from contract award to startup. limited space for installation of the new persuasively justified by a specific • 42 months for 14 SCRs installed to air emission control equipment and analysis of the feasibility and cost- comply with the Texas Nonattainment systems.’’59 This project is not effectiveness of such a schedule in light SIP. comparable to SCR retrofits at SJGS, of the circumstances at the facility in • 60 months estimated by B&V for 5 neither in scope, nor complexity, nor question. According to the commenter, units at Four Corners. • site congestion. no such justification appears in the 69 months estimated by Sargent & Based on an examination of site proposed rule. The proposal simply Lundy for 3 units at Navajo. conditions and available data on asserts that a three year compliance The median of these estimates is 33 historical SCR installation timeframes as deadline would be applicable because months and the average is 37 months. described above, we find that a change 56 similar compliance schedules have been The UARG report cited in this to our proposed compliance schedule is met at some other facilities. comment was published around the appropriate. We believe that a longer Another commenter stated that a same time (October 1, 2010) that we did time frame than the median time frame compliance deadline of three years will most of our SCR analysis and was for construction identified in our survey result in significant additional costs that unknown to us at that time. PNM and of SCR retrofits is justified due to site we did not account for in our analysis. B&V did not identify it in discussions They stated the proposed FIP attempts with us in October–November 2010. 57 U.S., et al., v. Ohio Edison Company, et al., to justify a three-year compliance That report confirms the information we Opinion and Order, Case No. 2:99–CV–1181, In the deadline by citing two studies, but those found through independent U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, studies do not reflect a realistic investigation, summarized above. It Eastern Division, available at: http:// schedule for installing SCRs at SJGS. www.4cleanair.org/OhioEdison.pdf. indicates that it took 28 to 62 months to 58 U.S. v. Ohio Edison and Pennsylvania Power This commenter made several points Company, Consent Decree, March 18, 2005, concerning two studies on SCR 55 ClearSkies: http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/ available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ timelines we cited in our proposal that 03technical_package_sectiong.pdf. resources/decrees/civil/caa/ohioedison-cd.pdf. the commenter feels call our use of the 56 ‘‘Implementation Schedule for Selective 59 Michael D. McElwain, Sammis Energy Plant Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Flue Gas Project Wins Award, Herald-Star, December 13, information into question. The Desulfurization (FGD) Process Equipment’’ October 2010, available at: http://www.hsconnect.com/page/ commenter then cites another report it 1, 2010, prepared by J. Edward Cichanowicz for the content.detail/id/552039/Sammis-energy-plant- believes is more representative and Utility Air Regulatory Group. project-wins-award.html?nav=5010.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52409

congestion. We do not believe a Comment: A commenter stated that that our BART determination proposal timeframe as long as that allowed for the our cost estimate does not appear to would reduce NOX emissions, but Sammis units is warranted, nor is it account for the need to have two units would do little to reduce SOX or carbon allowed by the RHR. Consequently, we offline at the same time to install the dioxide (CO2) emissions, leaving SJGS are finalizing a schedule which requires SCRs, and the commenter expresses the far from compliance with new or future compliance with the emission limits view that PNM would not be able to standards. The commenter states our within 5 years—rather than 3 years— meet a three-year deadline for BART proposal could cost $750 million from the effective date of our final rule. compliance without taking two units or more (based on PNM’s figures), and Comment: A commenter objected to offline at once. The commenter listed a would have an adverse effect on the cost the proposed compliance schedule of 3 number of things that would have to of electricity. Based on 2006-generation years and was concerned that SCR occur in the construction process, such numbers of 12.5 million MWh’s, installations often trigger PSD as engineering, vendor procurement, amortized over a 20-year period at 8% permitting requirements because they and catalysts procurement, and finally, interest, and a $750 million constitute physical changes to an the fact that construction on each unit modification price, the commenter existing emission unit that may result in needs to take place during an outage. In calculates the cost of electricity would increased emissions of sulfuric acid addition, the commenter argues, a three- increase by approximately $6 per MWh mist. The commenter stated that year deadline would likely eliminate the or 0.6 cents per kWh. obtaining a PSD permit for an SCR can ability of PNM to plan the outages for The commenter states that although take up to 18 months or more and even off-peak seasons, when the demand for natural gas fired combined cycle, and if the SCRs do not trigger PSD power and the cost for replacement integrated gasification combined cycle, permitting requirements projects could power are lower. Also, a three-year have merit no option offers more still trigger state permitting period would require PNM to benefits than a CTL plant with requirements, which can require several prefabricate as much of the SCRs as integrated power generation. According months to satisfy. The commenter possible, which would require to the commenter, the synthetic fuels further stated that the installation of an extremely large prefabrication yards and produced are drop-in replacements for SCR will involve a significant capital prefabrication crews, significant diesel and jet fuel, and contain virtually expenditure that will require approval overtime hours, expedited material no sulfur. The US military has from the New Mexico Public Regulation costs, double ‘‘heavy long-lift’’ crane conducted extensive tests on these fuels, Commission. The commenter alleged costs, and a larger construction and finds that they produce far lower that we failed to take these requirements workforce overall. The commenter states emissions than conventional petroleum- into account resulting in an these costs were not included in its based fuels. According to the commenter, the unachievable deadline for compliance. analysis. The commenter lists other conversion of the SJGS into a CTL plant Response: As stated elsewhere in our complications such as a shortage of skilled labor, air permitting with integrated power generation would response to comments, we have retain jobs in the mining and plant modified the compliance schedule. We requirements, and other pre- construction activities, the possible operations, will create ultra-clean are finalizing a schedule which requires need to purchase electricity at higher biodegradable synthetic fuels in the CTL compliance with the emission limits prices, and strain on PNM’s other process, and will use the waste heat and within 5 years—rather than 3 years— generating assets. The commenter byproduct gases from the process to from the effective date of our final rule. requests we consider these costs and cogenerate electric power. The We conclude this is adequate time for constraints in its setting a three- to five- commenter states that emissions of the inclusion of any possible permitting year, compliance schedule and set the criteria pollutants from the CTL plant requirements. deadline for compliance to the five manufactured by his company approach Comment: A commenter stated that years allowed by law, or even longer if those of a NGCC plant and emissions of our compliance schedule of three years PNM is required to respond with a CO2 are half those of a NGCC plant. from the effective date of our final rule ‘‘Better than BART Alternative.’’ The commenter calculates that a did not allow time for competitive Response: As stated elsewhere in our 50,000 barrel per day CTL plant can co- bidding. To meet a three-year schedule, response to comments, we have produces 1200 MW of clean, efficient, the commenter argued, PNM would modified the compliance schedule. We low carbon power. This would be have to simply offer the work to a single find that compliance with the emission baseload generation, the commenter vendor, eliminating the opportunity to limits must be within 5 years of the argues, that would be produced 24/7 identify other qualified vendors or effective date of our final rule. A longer and could be sold into the California provide any incentive to encourage schedule will allow PNM to tie in the marketplace. The size of the facility competitive pricing. Therefore, the SCRs during routinely scheduled could be scaled to meet greater energy failure to account for this renders the maintenance outages and to plan needs. The commenter states a plant of three-year compliance date unrealistic, outages for off-peak seasons. We have this size would consume approximately and calls into question the underlying not received any request from PNM that 30,000 tons per day of coal, which is cost estimates, which are based on we consider a ‘‘better than BART nominally twice as much coal as is contracts entered into by other utilities alternative.’’ currently consumed, so more jobs will that most likely were allowed sufficient be needed at the mine. F. Comments on the Conversion of the time to complete a proper competitive According to the commenter, NOX bidding process. SJGS to a Coal-to-Liquids Plant With emissions would be reduced by 50 to 1, Carbon Capture as a Means of Satisfying Response: We believe this comment is SOX emissions would be reduced by 20 BART incorrect. The 3 year schedule we to 1, and CO2 emissions would be proposed did include time to prequalify We received comments encouraging reduced by 5 to 1. The commenter also bidders. However, as stated elsewhere us to consider coal-to-liquids (CTL) notes that ash in the coal is melted in in our response to comments, we have technology with integrated power the gasification process, and can be used extended the compliance schedule to 5 generation as an option in determining as an aggregate for paving roadways. In years. BART for SJGS. The commenter states addition, the sulfur from the process can

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52410 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

be collected as elemental sulfur, and discussed elsewhere in our response to these pollutants can have negative sold as a byproduct. Water consumption comments, in light of information impacts on plants and ecosystems, would be reduced by about 1⁄2 in provided by commenters, we have damaging plants, trees, and other comparison to a conventional power refined our estimate to be $344,542,604. vegetation, and reducing forest growth plant of the same MW output, due to the We note that this estimate, being about and crop yields, which could have a use of a hybrid cooling system (air- one-third that of PNM’s, will result in negative effect on species diversity in cooled condenser in conjunction with a significantly lower costs being passed ecosystems. Therefore, although our cooling tower). on to rate payers than what has been action concerns visibility impairment, The commenter points out that estimated by PNM. we note the potential for significant KinderMorgan has an existing CO2 improvements in human health and the G. Comments on Health and Ecosystem pipeline in the vicinity. The CO2 from ecosystem. the plant could be sold to KinderMorgan Benefits, and Other Pollutants Although we appreciate the and used for enhanced oil recovery. Comment: Several conservation commenter’s concern regarding the A plant of this scale, according to the organizations jointly submitted a negative health impacts of toxic commenter, would cost approximately comment letter pointing out that the emissions from the SJGS, we note that $8 billion to construct, assuming all same pollutants that contribute to toxic emissions are not considered to be new equipment. However, this cost visibility impairment also harm public visibility impairing pollutants. could be substantially reduced by re- health and have negative ecosystem Similarly, Mercury is not a visibility utilization of much of the plant, impacts. They note that these same impairing pollutant,. N2O—a GHG— including coal handling equipment, pollutants also harm terrestrial and does not belong to the NOX family, nor steam turbines, condensers, cooling aquatic plants and animals, soil health, is it considered a visibility impairing towers, and transmission lines. The re- and moving and stationary bodies of pollutant. utilization of existing equipment could water by contributing to acid rain, ozone Comment: One commenter states that reduce the capital cost by an estimated formation, and nitrogen deposition. power plants are responsible for 25 to 35% as compared to a totally new Another commenter, a retired approximately one-quarter of the NOX facility. The commenter suggests this pediatrician, notes that NOX as a emitted in the U.S. each year, and could be a BART (retrofit) solution. The precursor to ozone, causes numerous therefore urges us to adopt a plan with commenter argues the revenues from respiratory problems and adversely stricter standards to regulate the toxic this plant would provide a return on affects children in particular; he air emissions from the SJGS to protect investment that exceeds all other supports our action. Another public health, decrease emergency room considered options by a wide margin. commenter urges us to take into visits and asthma. According to the The commenter encourages us to consideration the health impacts of commenter, the SJGS is one of the consider conversion to a CTL plant with toxic emissions from the SJGS. Two greatest NOX polluters in the nation, integrated power generation to be BART commenters state there are high levels contributing to the formation of harmful for SJGS. of mercury pollution originating from particulate matter, ground level ozone Response: We appreciate the the SJGS. A commenter also points out smog, and acid rain. commenter’s suggestion that we that nitrous oxide (N2O) is a greenhouse Response: We appreciate the consider CTL technology with gas (GHG) that contributes to climate commenters’ concerns regarding the integrated power generation as an change. According to the commenter, NOX emissions from power plants such option in determining NOX BART for PNM has accumulated many air quality as the SJGS. We agree that these the SJGS. Although we encourage PNM violations, and no amount of money is emissions are detrimental to human and the other owners of the SJGS, and worth the poisoning of our air, water, health and the environment, with NOX the Navajo Nation to examine this and soil. Another commenter points out being a precursor to ground-level ozone concept in detail, we cannot consider it that a recent study of the 2010 health and also leading to the formation of acid as a potential NOX BART technology as impacts of the SJGS estimated 33 rain. Although we appreciate the it would involve a complete redesign of deaths, 50 heart attacks, 600 asthma commenter’s encouragement that we the plant. We note the BART guidelines attacks, and over 30 hospital adopt even stricter standards, after state that ‘‘[w]e do not consider BART admissions, resulting in an estimated considering all the comments we as a requirement to redesign the source $255 million in health care costs in received, as we have stated elsewhere in when considering available control 2010. A commenter also expresses this notice, we believe that the alternatives.’’ 60 concern that if EPA lowers the ozone standards proposed in our proposal We agree with the commenter that the standard in 2011, La Plata County, CO, establish BART and will prevent NOX BART determination in our would not be attaining the standard. visibility impairment from the SJGS. proposal would reduce NOX emissions, Response: We appreciate the H. Miscellaneous Comments yet would do little to reduce SO2 and commenters’ concerns regarding the CO2 emissions from the SJGS. SO2 negative health impacts of emissions Comment: A commenter stated that it emissions under the RHR are covered by from the SJGS. We agree that the same is appropriate and necessary for us to the New Mexico submittal, which we PM2.5 emissions that cause visibility promulgate a FIP that addresses received on July 5, 2011. We will impairment can be inhaled deep into interstate transport of air pollutants address the adequacy of that submission lungs, which can cause respiratory from New Mexico, pointing out that the in a future action. As discussed in our problems, decreased lung function, SJGS is located a short distance from proposal, we disagree with PNM’s cost aggravated asthma, bronchitis, and several state boundaries. They also state estimate for installing SCR on the four premature death. We also agree that the we should have presented a clearer units of the SJGS. Although PNM same NOX emissions that cause explanation of the events that have estimated the total cost to be in excess visibility impairment also contribute to taken place related to New Mexico’s of $900 million, we estimated that cost the formation of ground-level ozone, work on the SIP in the 2003–2010 to be approximately $250 million. As which has been linked with respiratory timeframe. The commenter believes problems, aggravated asthma, and even including more detail in the background 60 70 FR 39104, 39164. permanent lung damage. We agree that section of the proposal about the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:46 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52411

intermediate actions taken by us and Comment: A commenter generally including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with NMED in the given timeframe in regards agrees with our proposed determination respect to preventing emissions from to New Mexico’s SIP would have added that all the air pollution sources in New New Mexico sources from interfering clarity for the public. Mexico are achieving the emission with other states’ measures to protect Response: We believe the level of levels assumed by the WRAP modeling visibility. As previously stated, we have detail we included in the ‘‘Background’’ except for the SJGS, but would like to an obligation to promulgate a FIP to section of our proposal is appropriate know what data and modeling supports address the requirements of section and sufficient to give the public a clear it. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility picture of the events leading up to our Response: We based our conclusion and a FIP to address the requirements of proposal. In particular, the subsection that all sources in New Mexico are RH. The purposes and requirements of titled Statutory and Regulatory achieving the emission levels assumed these programs are intertwined. As Framework Addressing Interstate by the WRAP in its modeling except for such, we consider it appropriate to Transport and Visibility provides the SJGS by reviewing the WRAP promulgate one FIP that addresses the detailed information to give the public photochemical modeling emission requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) a clear picture of what we received from projections used in the demonstration of with respect to visibility and the BART New Mexico in terms of the RH SIP and reasonable progress towards natural requirements for NOX for SJGS. the Interstate Transport SIP. visibility conditions and comparing We disagree with the commenter’s Comment: A commenter is concerned these emission projections to current belief that our proposal is counter- with degradation of visibility in Mesa emission levels from sources in New productive. As presented in our Verde National Park over the last Mexico. proposal, our modeling analysis Comment: A commenter stated that decade. The commenter believes that in demonstrates significant visibility there must be balance in the proposals the Interstate Transport SIP we received improvement at numerous Class I areas and regulations that are presented by on September 17, 2007, New Mexico’s from installation of SCR at the SJGS. As the federal and state governments. The statement that no sources in New we discuss elsewhere in our response to commenter indicated that although this Mexico impact the protection of comments, our estimate of the cost of is an issue of visibility, he is sure we installing SCR is approximately 1⁄3 what visibility in neighboring states seems to have somehow taken health impacts PNM estimated. Regarding the be unsupported by the evidence into consideration in formulating our commenter’s belief that the technology presented by NMED. proposal. The commenter also we proposed seems unnecessary since Response: We note that it appears that expressed his belief that our proposal is PNM recently completed a project that the commenter may have a counter-productive and has a better than ‘‘put it in compliance with all current misconception of what NMED average potential to harm the local and health requirements,’’ we note that as submitted in terms of the Interstate state economies. The commenter stated part of our visibility impairment and Transport SIP. As explained in our that the technology we are proposing is BART evaluation, we did consider the proposal, we received a SIP from New costly and seems unnecessary, as PNM controls previously installed by PNM as Mexico to address the interstate recently completed a project that put it a result of its consent decree with the transport provisions of CAA section in compliance with all current health Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, and 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone requirements, and only considers NMED on March 10, 2005. These and PM2.5 NAAQS on September 17, visibility in the surrounding national controls included the installation of 2007. New Mexico did not state in this parks and wilderness areas while low-NOX burners with overfire air ports, Interstate Transport SIP that no sources ignoring the economic impact to the a neural network system, and a pulse jet in New Mexico impact the protection of local community. The commenter fabric filter. visibility in neighboring states. Instead, expressed his belief that cost estimates However, as we discuss elsewhere in New Mexico’s Interstate Transport SIP from the private sector tend to be more our response to comments, these stated that the requirement under accurate than government estimates. controls were not sufficient to prevent section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that the state The commenter stated that our proposal New Mexico sources from interfering not interfere with the visibility calls into question the continued with measures required in the SIP of programs of other states would be viability of the SJGS as an asset to the any other state to protect visibility, addressed by the submittal of a RH SIP Public Service Company of New pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of by December 2007. As we state Mexico. The commenter stated that this the CAA. The reduction in NOX from elsewhere in our response to comments is not an issue that requires emergency our NOX BART determination and the and in our proposal, because New action, and suggests allowing SO2 emission limits will serve to ensure Mexico had not submitted a RH SIP or tomorrow’s technology provide a there are enforceable mechanisms in an alternative means of demonstrating solution to today’s problems. place to prohibit New Mexico NOX and that emissions from its sources would Response: We understand the SO2 emissions from interfering with not interfere with the visibility commenter’s concern regarding the need efforts to protect visibility in other programs of other States at the time of for balance in the regulations states. In addition, the RHR requires us our proposal, we proposed disapproval promulgated by state and federal to examine additional retrofit of the September 17, 2007 SIP, and governments. This decision is based on technologies. We have determined that proposed a FIP to fill that gap. We are the RH requirements of the CAA. We SCR is cost effective and results in now finalizing our proposed FIP to have not relied on any potential health significant visibility improvements at a ensure that emissions from New Mexico impacts in reaching our decision, number of Class I areas, over and above do not interfere with the visibility although we note the potential for the existing pollution controls currently programs of other States. We received significant improvements in public installed. With regard to the New Mexico’s RH SIP under section health. The SJGS is one of the largest commenter’s belief that cost estimates 51.309 on July 5, 2011, long after sources of NOX in the western U.S. and from the private sector tend to be more statutory and regulatory deadlines. We is within 300 kilometers of 16 Class I accurate than government estimates, we will review that submission, and areas. Finalizing our proposal is note that we take our duty to estimate address it in a future action. necessary to satisfy CAA requirements, the cost of controls very seriously and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52412 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

make every attempt to make a Improvement Board. The commenter the limited timeframe without resorting thoughtful and well-informed suggests that further reductions could be to a reduction-in-force that would determination. With regard to the made at the plant, including the potentially impact Navajo workers, commenter’s belief that this is not an possible installation of SCR, over contractors, and subcontractors. issue that requires emergency action subsequent planning periods. Such an Response: Because SJGS has not and that we should allow tomorrow’s approach would reduce the immediate proposed to shut down, we do not technology provide a solution to today’s financial burden on the power plant’s believe that jobs at the facility will be problems, we note that Congress added customers, allow time for greater threatened. EPA’s decision to lengthen the BART requirements to the CAA in certainty in terms of potential carbon the compliance deadline from 3 to 5 1977 to focus attention on the visibility limits and customer demand, and retain years should also provide some impacts from sources such as SJGS. We greater flexibility in future resource increases in local employment during therefore believe it is appropriate to take decisions. that time associated with the action now, and our FIP is necessary to Response: Regarding costs, EPA installation of pollution controls. The satisfy the requirements of CAA section reevaluated projections based on RHR requires that the costs of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to comments received to increase them to compliance and the non-air quality visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone $344,542,604, which is still much less environmental impacts of compliance standard and the 1997 PM2.5 standard, than industry projections and cost be considered [40 CFR and to satisfy certain related RH effective. Cost is one of the five factors 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)]. As described in our requirements. We also note that as considered in making BART proposal, we found that PNM did not described elsewhere in this preamble, determinations.61 Regarding the utility’s identify any significant or unusual New Mexico has only recently loss of flexibility, the emission limits we environmental impacts associated with submitted a RH plan that addresses the select today are the result of a schedule the control alternatives that had the interstate provisions of the CAA with in the 1977 Clean Air Act to make potential to affect the selection or respect to visibility, and as also gradual reductions in emissions over a elimination of that control alternative. explained we cannot review it as part of decades-long period of time For SCR and SCR/SNCR hybrid this action. The FIP clocks of both With regard to the commenter’s technologies, the non-air quality statutory requirements have expired and request that we recognize the emissions environmental impacts EPA evaluated we therefore have an obligation to act reductions already made at SJGS or to included the consideration of water now under the CAA. defer to the SIP recently that was usage and waste generated from each submitted by NMED to the control technology. Comment: An owner participant of Environmental Improvement Board near Comment: A commenter argues that Units 1 and 2 at the SJGS indicates that the time of the comment, we note that things like wood burning stoves, wood our proposal presents significant as part of our NOX BART evaluation for burning fireplaces, and natural challenges and risks to its resource SJGS, we did consider the controls occurrences such as dust, wind, fires, planning by handicapping its ability to previously installed by PNM as a result and humidity, impair visibility just as cost effectively respond to changing of its consent decree with the Grand much as utilities. The commenter asks conditions. The commenter states that Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, and NMED us to explain how we propose to control uncertainties such as the impact of on March 10, 2005. However, in making those events that affect air quality. potential future regulations, future fuel the NOX BART determination, we were Response: Natural haze factors are prices, and customer load growth/ obligated by the RHR to examine recognized in the current degree of decline, have the potential to change the additional retrofit technologies. EPA visibility impairment in Class 1 areas. economic viability of their generating will give priority to the review of New The purpose of this decision is to resources. The commenter points out Mexico’s recently submitted Haze SIP; significantly decrease impairment from that implementation of our proposal however, it was received too late to be the largest man made sources. In would require it to make a significant taken into consideration in this rule addition, the emissions resulting from capital investment in the plant, the cost making. wood burning stoves and fireplaces are of which could only be recovered Comment: The Navajo Nation typically included in the emission through long-term operation of that submitted comments stating that the inventory, which is part of the RH SIP asset. This would likely have the effect Navajo Nation Environmental Protection New Mexico recently submitted to us of ‘‘locking’’ SJGS into the generation Agency is concerned that non-air under 40 CFR 51.309. We will review portfolio for a considerable period of quality impacts have not been the adequacy of this SIP submission in time or risk stranding those adequately considered in the proposed a separate future proposal. investments. According to the rule. The commenter states that 20% of Comment: The commenter asks us to commenter, this loss of flexibility would the plant workers at the SJGS and 41% explain how we intend to analyze the hamper its ability to respond to future of the mine workforce at the San Juan cost benefits to businesses and scenarios such as changes in the Mine are Navajo Nation tribal members. individuals. economic viability of coal resources, The commenter is concerned that we Response: The CAA requires us to changes in acceptance of coal resources have provided no information or consider the cost of installing controls by State utility commissions, and analyses to explain how the SJGS will and the visibility benefits as part of the reduced demand for coal resources. The fund the SCR installation costs within BART analysis, and we have done that. commenter states that this loss of The commenter may wish to consult the flexibility is completely unnecessary 61 States must consider the following factors in Statutory and Executive Orders Review given that the RH program is intended making BART determinations: (1) The costs of section of this action, which includes compliance; (2) the energy and nonair quality to make gradual reductions in emissions environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any our determination that the FIP does not over a decades-long period of time. The existing pollution control technology in use at the contain a Federal mandate that may commenter asks us to recognize the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; result in expenditures that exceed the significant reductions already made at and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility inflation-adjusted Unfunded Mandates which may reasonably be anticipated to result from SJGS or to defer to the SIP submitted by the use of such technology. 40 CFR Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) threshold NMED to the Environmental 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). of $100 million by State, local, or Tribal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52413

governments or the private sector in any Reservation. The Tribe is concerned SCR at the SJGS is both appropriate and 1 year. about the impacts of emissions from achievable at a reasonable cost. SJGS on visibility on the Reservation; Response: We note that several of the I. Comments in Favor of Our Proposal therefore the Tribe is in favor of specific emissions and timeframe Comment: Overall, we received more reducing the regional transport of ozone limitations supported by these than 12,000 comment letters in support and ozone precursors such as NOX. commenters in the proposal have been of our rulemaking from members We received two resolutions which modified slightly in this final action representing states, tribes, local generally support this rulemaking, one based on all of the information received governments, various organizations and from the City of Durango, Colorado, and during the comment period. Please see concerned citizens in support of this another from the Town of Ignacio the docket associated with this action rulemaking: These comments were Colorado. These resolutions include for additional detail. received at the Public Hearing in support for requiring the use of BART J. Comments Arguing Our Proposal Farmington, New Mexico, by Internet, at the San Juan Generating Station. and through the mail. Each of these Another commenter expressed Would Hurt the Economy and/or Raise commenters was generally in favor of support of our proposal. The commenter Electricity Rates our proposed decision for the SJGS. states that for the past 30–40 years, the Comment: A commenter stated that if These comments include urging us to SJGS has had a largely unrestricted use the FIP is adopted, the owners of the require appropriate retrofit technology of the large common air-shed shared by SJGS will have three options: at the SJGS for emission control, and Montezuma County, Colorado and San compliance, plant shutdown, or plant limiting NOX, SO2, sulfuric acid and Juan County, New Mexico. During this modification. The commenter states that ammonia currently or potentially timeframe, the residents of Montezuma compliance would result in a capital released by the facility. A number of County and their neighbors have been expense not justified by the likely representative comments from this continually exposed to the air pollution results of that investment, and would be group are summarized below. The arising from the SJGS, yet the residents a terrible, indefensible waste of Complete Response to Comments for of Montezuma County receive no benefit resources. Plant shutdown would result NM Regional Haze/Visibility Transport from operation of the plant in terms of in the loss of hundreds of jobs in direct FIP document includes the full text electricity (aside from 40 MW plant employment, coal mining, and received by these commenters. purchased from SJGS), tax revenues, other support and service sectors. The We received many letters which were and community support. commenter also points out that plant similar in content and format, and are Another commenter supported all shutdown would result in the SJGS represented by thirteen types of positive aspects of our proposed rule. The customers losing their investment in the comment letters in the docket for this commenter volunteers at Mesa Verde plant, which they have paid for through rulemaking. Each of these comment National Park and mentions that many rate payment. SJGS customers would letters supports our proposed decision park visitors express disappointment have to pay for the development of new for the San Juan Generation Station in over the degraded air quality and generation facilities and fuel contracts New Mexico. More than 7,000 of these limited vistas from the Park. The or would have to buy power on the open letters specifically urge us to keep or commenter states that the 2.88 deciview market, and they would also be lower our proposed numeric limits on of visibility improvement we predicted responsible for the reclamation of the nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and sulfuric at Mesa Verde National Park with SCR plant site and any coal mine that might acid pollution in our final decision and installed at SJGS, would be readily be abandoned as a result of plant urge us to require compliance with the noticed by both residents and visitors to closure. The commenter states that plant limits within three years. the region. The commenter notes that modification would likely take the form We received a letter from the State of PNM’s Web site claims that SCR is of conversion from coal-fired to natural Colorado in support of this rulemaking. ‘‘unnecessary’’ and would ‘‘raise gas-fired, which would also result in These comments include support for electricity prices for the SJGS’s two loss of jobs, as there would be no need our careful evaluation of NOX emission million customers,’’ yet PNM offers no for coal. The commenter indicates that control costs for the SJGS, and our data or other support for its conclusion. all three options would result in an proposed promulgation of cost effective The commenter also notes that no increase in the cost of electricity to emission control for this facility to significant improvement in Four customers, which should be avoided or improve visibility and provide other Corners RH has been seen since PNM eliminated in light of the weakened and environmental benefits. The State of completed installation of emission unstable economic conditions at the Colorado also encouraged us to work controls pursuant to the 2009 consent national, state, and local levels. closely with the State of New Mexico in decree. The commenter also states that Another part owner of Unit 4 at the selecting the most appropriate NOX it is legally, socially, and economically SJGS, submitted comments stating that control technology. appropriate for PNM’s customers to pay the impact from imposing its share of We received a letter from the the full costs of the power they the costs of installing SCR at the SJGS, Southern Ute Indian Tribe in support of consume, including the air pollution may require it to raise electric rates, cut this rulemaking. The Tribe’s comments created while generating it. The back on planned clean energy include support for our proposed action commenter also states that although investments, or both, all for what appear to prevent emissions from New Mexico PNM characterizes the SJGS as a ‘‘low to be insignificant benefits. sources from interfering with other cost’’ producer of power, it fails to Response: EPA’s evaluation of capital state’s measures to protect visibility, acknowledge that a substantial cost of expenses by the implementation of the and to implement NOX and SO2 its power, in the form of regional air FIP shows them to be justified by the emissions limits at the SJGS to prevent quality degradation, is borne by the degree of improvement in visibility in interference. In addition, the Tribe people of the Four Corners region, many relationship to the cost of supports our proposal to regulate of whom do not consume SJGS power implementation. The FIP calls for NOX emissions sources in neighboring areas and derive no economic benefit from the and SO2 emission limits at the SJGS to that could undermine the Tribes’ efforts facility. The commenter believes a prevent interference with other states’ to maintain air quality on the three-year implementation schedule for visibility SIPs as well as requiring BART

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52414 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

for NOX at this source. BART requires SJGS with SCR is a large construction stating that it would submit a RH SIP by that we evaluate (1) cost of compliance, project that we expect to take 3 to 5 December 2007. (2) the energy and non-air quality years to complete. This project will On January 15, 2009, EPA published environmental impacts of compliance, require well-paid, skilled labor which a ‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit State (3) any existing pollution control can potentially be drawn from the local Implementation Plans Required by the technology in use at the source, (4) area, which would seem to benefit the 1999 Regional Haze Rule.’’ 74 FR 2392. remaining useful life of source, and (5) economy. We found that New Mexico and other degree of improvement in visibility states had failed to submit for our which may reasonably be anticipated to L. Comments Requesting an Extension review and approval complete SIPs for result from the use of such technology. to the Public Comment Period improving visibility in the nation’s After careful cost review EPA has Comment: We received comments national parks and wilderness areas by determined that the significant benefits requesting that the comment period be the required date of December 17, 2007. in visibility resulting from the extended, with most requesting an We found that New Mexico failed to implementation of the FIP outweigh the additional 60 days. We also received submit the plan elements required by 40 increase in costs for the facility. comments requesting additional public CFR 51.309(g), the reasonable progress requirements for areas other than the 16 K. Comments Arguing Our Proposal hearings. Class I areas covered by the Grand Would Help the Economy Response: Originally the comment Canyon Visibility Transport Comment: We received several period for our proposal was due to close on March 7, 2011. In response to Commission Report. New Mexico also comments stating that the proposed FIP failed to submit the plan element would help local economies by creating requests we extended the public comment period to April 4, 2011. In required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), which new and different jobs in the Region and requires BART for stationary source by increasing tourism. In particular, one doing so, we took into consideration how an extension might affect our emissions of NOX and PM under either commenter stated reducing visibility- 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2). This ability to consider comments received causing pollutants have far-reaching notice initiated a 2-year deadline, on the proposed action and still comply impacts on local economies, human referred to as the ‘‘FIP clock,’’ for New with the terms of a consent decree we health, and ecosystems. The commenter Mexico to submit a SIP or for EPA to have with WildEarth Guardians.62 We stated that decreasing these pollutants issue a FIP. The FIP would provide the do note that our February 17, 2011, will benefit all of these important areas basic program requirements for each public hearing in Farmington, New of concern. This commenter noted that State that has not completed an Mexico was well attended and provided tourism is critical to the economy of approved plan of their own by January an opportunity for people to comment New Mexico and the Four Corners 15, 2011. The CAA requires EPA to on our proposal. region, and made several points: Utah’s promulgate a FIP if a State fails to make five Class I areas, all of which are M. Comments Requesting We Defer a required SIP submittal or if we find national parks, generate a significant Action in Favor of a New Mexico SIP that the State’s submittal is incomplete, portion of this sustainable tourism Submittal does not meet the minimum criteria economy: in 2008, these areas were established in the CAA or we responsible for 5.7 million recreation Comment: Various commenters have disapprove in whole or in part the SIP visits, over $400 million in spending, stated that the NMED should take the submission. CAA section 110(c)(1). and nearly 9,000 jobs. Parks attract lead in implementing the RH In addition, WildEarth Guardians businesses and individuals to the local requirements of the CAA based on the sued EPA alleging that we failed to area, resulting in economic growth in fundamental principle that the CAA and perform the non-discretionary duty to areas near parks that is an average of 1 the RHR emphasize that states, not EPA, either approve a SIP or promulgate a FIP percent per year greater than statewide are to take the lead in implementing the for New Mexico, among other States, to rates over the past three decades. RH program, and we should wait taking satisfy the requirements of CAA section National parks also generate more than action until NMED submits to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard to the 1997 four dollars in value to the public for Agency their revised RH SIP and adopt National Ambient Air Quality Standards every tax dollar invested. Therefore, this such submittal instead of promulgating for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate commenter concluded, improving a FIP. matter. We have entered into a consent visibility at these national parks Response: Congress crafted the CAA decree with WildEarth Guardians to improves the local economies around to provide for States to take the lead for resolve this matter. them. implementing plans, but balanced that This consent decree specifically This commenter also noted that an decision by requiring EPA to approve requires us—no later than August 5, additional economic incentive behind the plans or prescribe a federal plan 2011—to sign a notice either approving protecting air quality is the necessary should the State plan be inadequate. a SIP, promulgating a FIP, or approving investment in pollution control Our action today is consistent with the a SIP in part with promulgation of a technologies as they are a job-creating statute. As explained in our proposal, partial FIP, for New Mexico to meet the mechanism in itself. Each installation we received a SIP from New Mexico to requirement of 42 U.S.C. creates short-term construction jobs as address the interstate transport 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interfering well as permanent operations and provisions of CAA section with measures in other states related to management positions. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone protection of visibility. As required by Response: We agree with the and PM2.5 NAAQS on September 17, the consent decree, since New Mexico comments. Although we did not 2007. New Mexico’s September 17, 2007 did not submit a complete proposed SIP consider the potential positive benefits submittal addressed the requirement to address the visibility requirement by to local economies in making our that the state not interfere with the May 10, 2010, then by November 10, decision today, we do expect that visibility programs of other states by 2010, EPA was required to propose one improved visibility would have a of three actions: A FIP; approval of a SIP positive impact on tourism-dependent 62 WildEarth Guardians v. Lisa Jackson, Case No. (if one has been submitted in the local economies. Also, retrofitting the 4:09–CV–02453–CW. interim); or partial promulgation of a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52415

FIP and partial approval of a SIP. In the both provisions of the CAA, and both a RH SIP submission and we approved absence of a SIP, EPA proposed a FIP on provisions concern emissions of NOX it. That two year period has also January 5, 2011. We received the New (among other pollutants). To separate expired. Mexico submittal on July 5, 2011,after our actions could potentially lead to the On September 17, 2007 we received a the close of the record for the proposed same source needing to install two SIP from New Mexico to address the FIP EPA will give priority to the review successive levels of control measures, interstate transport provisions of CAA of New Mexico’s SIP but we cannot the first in order to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone consider it and meet the consent decree requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and PM2.5 NAAQS. In that submission, deadline. and then the second in order to meet the the state indicated that it intended to requirements of the RH program. meet the requirements of section N. Comments Generally Against Our The CAA requires each state to 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility Proposal develop a SIP that provides for the by submission of a timely RH SIP. Those Comment: Various commenters implementation, maintenance, and RH SIPs were due no later than generally stated they do not support the enforcement of the NAAQS. CAA December 17, 2007. proposed rulemaking. Their reasons section 110(a)(1). The statute explicitly As of the time of our proposal for this included: It will affect the town’s requires that each state’s SIP shall action on January 5, 2011, the state had economy, affect the coal power plant include, among other things, adequate not make the RH SIP submission as industry, electricity costs will increase, provisions prohibiting any source from represented in its section 110(a)(2)(D) they have no direct health problems emitting any air pollutants in amounts submission, and had not make a RH SIP from actual emissions, direct and which will interfere with measures submission or alternate section indirect jobs/businesses would be required to be included in the 110(a)(2)(D) submission indicating that affected, current air pollution control applicable implementation plan for any the state intended to meet visibility equipment meet EPA and health other State to protect visibility. CAA prong by any other means. standards. Others commented that our section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We received a RH SIP submittal from decision is arbitrary as no other similar On April 25, 2005, we published a the state on July 5, 2011. Unfortunately, facilities have the same requirements ‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for due to the timing of that submittal, we imposed by the FIP and that there will Interstate Transport for the 8-hour cannot evaluate it as part of this action. be no benefit to the community. One Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 70 FR We note that this RH SIP submittal 1 commenter argues that SJGS already 21147. This notice included a finding arrived approximately 3 ⁄2 years past the meets the visibility standards required that New Mexico and other states had due date of December 17, 2007, and well by the CAA. failed to submit SIPs to address any of past January 15, 2011, the date by which Response: While we appreciate the the four prongs of section we were obligated either to approve a effort and time of the commenters, the 110(a)(2)(D)(i), including the provisions RH SIP submission or to promulgate a comments did not include relating to interstate transport of air RH FIP, as a result of the 2009 finding documentation, rationale, or data for pollution affecting visibility, and started of failure to submit the RH SIP. EPA to respond beyond our responses a 2-year clock for us to promulgate a Moreover, the July 5, 2011, submission provided elsewhere. FIP, unless a State made a submission also occurred more than four years after to meet the requirements of section the date by which we were obligated O. Comments on Legal Issues 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and we approved the either to approve a SIP submission or to 1. EPA’s Authority submission. CAA section 110(c)(1). That promulgate a FIP to address the state’s two year period has expired. failure to submit a submission for Comment: Various commenters The CAA also requires each state to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). argued that combining Interstate develop a SIP to protect visibility. CAA We are under a consent decree Transport and RH BART requirements section 169. On January 15, 2009, we deadline with WildEarth Guardians that in the proposed action exceeds our published a ‘‘Finding of Failure to requires the Agency to take action by authority and does not satisfy the Submit State Implementation Plans August 5, 2011, either to approve the regulatory requirements of each Required by the 1999 Regional Haze New Mexico section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP, or program, and each program has different Rule.’’ 74 FR 2392. In that notice we to promulgate a FIP, to address the requirements and purposes. found that New Mexico and other states 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility prong. Response: We do not agree that it had failed to submit complete SIPs for Because of the lateness of the July 5, exceeds our authority to combine action improving visibility in the nation’s 2011 submission, it is not possible to on RH BART requirements as part of our national parks and wilderness areas by review and potentially fully approve the action on the required State submittal to the required date of December 17, 2007. July 5, 2011, SIP submission by meet section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA. Specifically, we found that New Mexico proposing a rulemaking and EPA has two separate sources of failed to submit the plan elements promulgating a final action by August 5, authority and obligations to take this required by 40 CFR 51.309(g), the 2011, as required by the consent decree. action, i.e., a statutory obligation to reasonable progress requirements for The CAA requires us to promulgate a promulgate a FIP to meet the areas other than the 16 Class I areas FIP if a State fails to make a required requirements of section covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility SIP submittal or if we find that the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and a statutory Transport Commission Report. In State’s submittal is incomplete, does not obligation to promulgate a FIP to meet addition, we also found that New meet the minimum criteria established RH program requirements of the CAA. Mexico had failed to submit the plan in the CAA or we disapprove in whole Nothing in the CAA precludes EPA from element required by 40 CFR or in part the SIP submission. CAA addressing both requirements 51.309(d)(4), which requires BART for section 110(c)(1). As previously simultaneously, and indeed, to address stationary source emissions of NOX and discussed, we have made findings both in the same action is rational to PM under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or related to the New Mexico SIP ensure the most efficient use of 51.308(e)(2). This finding of failure to submission needed to address interstate resources by both the Agency and the submit started a 2-year clock for us to transport and the requirement that affected source. The SJGS is subject to promulgate a FIP, unless the State made emissions from New Mexico sources do

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52416 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

not interfere with measures required in whole or in part, or did not make an maintenance’’ and ‘‘interfere with the SIP of any other state to protect approvable RH SIP submission, we have measures to prevent significant visibility, pursuant to section evaluated whether states could comply deterioration’’ prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by other 110(a)(2)(D)(i). (75 FR 72688, November Therefore, as New Mexico failed to means. Thus, we have elsewhere 26, 2010). Were it in fact submit an approvable SIP that addresses determined that states may also be able ‘‘inappropriate’’ to act on portions of the interstate provisions of the CAA to satisfy the requirements of CAA SIP submissions, or were it contrary to with respect to visibility, and has made section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with the structure and purpose of the CAA to a very late RH SIP submission giving us something less than an approved RH do so, as the commenters argue, we no time to complete the regulatory SIP, see e.g. Colorado (76 FR 22036 would not have taken such prior actions process necessary to evaluate that (April 20, 2011)) and Idaho (76 FR on portions of the state’s section submission in light of the deadlines 36329 (June 22, 2011)). In other words, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submission. Moreover, no imposed by the above-mentioned an approved RH SIP is not the only one objected to those actions on these consent decree, we have the statutory possible means to satisfy the grounds. authority and the obligation to requirements of CAA section We also contend that promulgating promulgate a FIP that meets one or both 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to FIPs to address specific CAA requirements. visibility; however, such a SIP could be requirements is consistent with the In addition, we think that it is sufficient. Given this reasoning, we do purposes of the statute. One of the appropriate to take action on the not agree with commenters’ contentions primary goals of the CAA is to protect visibility requirements of section that the two programs have completely and enhance the quality of the Nation’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and RH program different requirements and purposes air resources so as to promote the public requirements simultaneously in these and that it is unreasonable for EPA to health and welfare. CAA section circumstances because the purposes and seek to address these issues in the same 101(b)(1). Failing to submit an requirements of the interstate transport action. approvable SIP submission, as required provisions of the CAA with respect to Comment: Various commenters have by section 110 of CAA, is contrary to the visibility and the RH program are stated that we proposed to act on an purposes and goals of the CAA. The intertwined. The requirements of CAA interstate transport SIP requirement, CAA requires us to promulgate a FIP if section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) explicitly while borrowing portions of the RH SIP a State has failed to make a required provide that states must have SIPs with requirements, and that such partial submission or finds that a plan does not adequate provisions to prevent implementation of programs is satisfy the minimum established inference with the efforts of other states inappropriate and conflicts with the criteria, or disapproves a SIP to protect visibility, which includes the structure and purpose of the CAA. submission in whole or in part. CAA protections contemplated by the RH Response: We disagree with the section 110(c)(1). program. This section of the CAA premise of the commenters that we In this action, we are disapproving a requires each SIP ‘‘to include adequate cannot address more than one statutory portion of the New Mexico Interstate provisions prohibiting any source from requirement in the same notice and Transport SIP with respect to the emitting any air pollutants in amounts comment rulemaking. See response to requirement that emissions from New which will interfere with measures comments, above, regarding our general Mexico sources do not interfere with required to be included in the authority and obligation to act on measures required in the SIP of any applicable implementation plan for any section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and RH SIP other state to protect visibility. On other State * * * to protect visibility.’’ requirements. We also specifically September 17, 2007 we received a SIP These required SIP measures to protect disagree that acting on portions of the from New Mexico to address the visibility are set forth in sections 169A RH SIP requirements in this action is interstate transport provisions of CAA & 169B of the CAA and EPA’s inappropriate and conflicts with the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone implementing regulations for the RH structure and purpose of the CAA. We and PM2.5 NAAQS. In this submission, program. have authority to act on submissions, or the state indicated that it intended to Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not portions of submissions, as appropriate meet the requirements of section explicitly define what is required in to meet the requirements of the CAA, in 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility SIPs to prevent the prohibited impact on accordance with section 110(k)(3). In by submission of a timely RH SIP. As visibility in other states. However, this instance, we have determined that previously explained above, we because the RH program requires it is appropriate to take action received a RH SIP submission from the measures that must be included in SIPs addressing the NOX BART requirements state on July 5, 2011. Because of the specifically to protect visibility, EPA’s for an individual source, and thereby to lateness of the submission, and in light 2006 Guidance 63 recommended that RH meet a portion of our outstanding of our obligations under the WildEarth SIP submissions meeting the statutory FIP obligation for the RH Guardians consent decree to have requirements of the visibility program program, at the same time as acting on completed rulemaking on the visibility could satisfy the requirements of CAA the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) SIP prong of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), it is not section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to submission with respect to the visibility possible to review such SIP submission, visibility. prong to meet that statutory FIP propose a rulemaking, and promulgate a Subsequently, when some states did obligation. final action prior to the August 5, 2011 not make the RH SIP submission, in We note that we have previously deadline. acted on other portions of the section Therefore, as previously stated, we 63 See, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission from the have both a statutory obligation to (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding state. In prior actions, we approved the promulgate a FIP to address the Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)for the 8- New Mexico SIP submittal for: (1) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air ‘‘significant contribution to with respect to visibility and a statutory Quality Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, to nonattainment’’ prong of section obligation to promulgate a FIP to Regional Air Division Director, Regions I–X, dated 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 33174, June 11, address the requirements of RH. As also August 15, 2006 (the ‘‘2006 Guidance’’). 2010); and (2) the ‘‘interfere with previously stated, the purposes and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52417

requirements of these programs are 110(a)(2)(D) submission with respect to Moreover, our proposal articulated that intertwined. As such, we consider it the visibility prong, because the state’s evaluation of the analysis conducted by appropriate to promulgate one FIP that submission was consistent with EPA’s the WRAP is one means of gauging addresses both the requirements of 2006 guidance to states for these SIP whether New Mexico has adequately section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to submission. controlled its sources for this purpose. visibility and the BART requirements Response: We disagree with these We also disagree with the assertion for NOX from SJGS. Although there are assertions. First, in the proposal we that we have failed to explain additional RH SIP requirements to be explained our views as to the proper adequately our interpretation of the addressed, and we intend to address interpretation of section visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) these requirements in the near future, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We explained that in light of the requirements of section there is no requirement in the CAA that section 110(a)(2)(D(i)(II) requires states 169A and 169B of the Act. As explained we take action to address a state’s ‘‘to have a SIP, or submit a SIP revision, in our proposed action, the CAA failure to submit an approvable RH SIP containing provisions ‘prohibiting any establishes a visibility protection in only one action. source or other type of emissions program that sets forth ‘‘as a national Comment: Some commenters argued activity within the state from emitting goal the prevention of any future, and that the proposed FIP is too all any air pollutant in amounts which will the remedying of any existing, encompassing, exceeds the authority * * * interfere with measures required impairment of visibility in mandatory vested in EPA under Section 110 of the to be included in the applicable class I Federal areas which impairment CAA because it provides too stringent a implementation plan for any other State results from manmade air pollution.’’ control for attaining visibility standards, under part C [of the CAA] to protect CAA section 169A(a)(1). In section and will have broader impact than the visibility. 76 FR 493 (January 5, 2011). 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to purpose of the CAA to not interfere with We explicitly stated that ‘‘[b]ecause of the CAA, Congress created a program for neighboring state implementation plans. the impacts on visibility from the protecting visibility in the nation’s Response: In general, for the reasons interstate transport of pollutants, we national parks and wilderness areas. we have outlined elsewhere in our interpret the ‘good neighbor’ provisions This section of the CAA establishes as responses to comments, we disagree that of section 110 of the Act described a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any our FIP is too all encompassing or above as requiring states to include in future, and the remedying of any exceeds our authority under section their SIPs measures to prohibit existing, impairment of visibility in 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. Under that emissions that would interfere with the mandatory Class I Federal areas which provision, we may not approve the SIP reasonable progress goals set to protect impairment results from manmade air submission from the state unless the SIP Class I areas in other states.’’ Id. pollution.’’ In 1980, we promulgated contains provisions adequate to prohibit In the proposal, we expressed our regulations to address visibility emissions from sources in that state view that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) impairment in Class I areas that is from interfering with measures required ‘‘does not explicitly specify how we ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single to protect visibility in other states. As should ascertain whether a state’s SIP source or small group of sources, i.e., explained in this action, we have contains adequate provisions to prevent ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility determined that emissions sources in emissions from sources in that state impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, New Mexico meet this requirement, from interfering with measures required 1980). These regulations represented the except for the SJGS. For this source, we in another state to protect visibility’’ Id. first phase in addressing visibility have determined that additional and at 496. We clearly stated that the statute impairment. We deferred action on RH federally enforceable controls are is thus ambiguous and that the Agency that emanates from a variety of sources required in order to meet the NOX must interpret that provision in this until monitoring, modeling and emissions used in the WRAP action. Id. We are explaining our scientific knowledge about the photochemical modeling and that reading of the ambiguity in the statute relationships between pollutants and federally enforceable emission limits are in this notice and comment rulemaking. visibility impairment were improved. required in order to meet the SO2 Thereafter, we articulated in detail the Id. emissions used in the WRAP underlying premise for our 2006 Congress added section 169B to the photochemical modeling, as part of this guidance, and the recommendations CAA in 1990 to address RH issues, and action in order to be in compliance with that states address this requirement we promulgated regulations addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Our action is also through submission of the RH SIP. We RH in 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), based in part on our authority to address specifically explained the basis for our codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P the NOX BART requirements for the belief that the development of those (the RHR). The RHR revised the existing SJGS. To meet this separate SIPs would provide an appropriate visibility regulations to integrate requirement, we have determined that forum in which states would have provisions addressing RH impairment specific NOX controls are required for evaluated the need for emission controls and established a comprehensive the SJGS. to protect visibility, and in particular visibility protection program for Class I Comment: Various commenters would have considered emissions from areas. The requirements for RH, found at argued that EPA failed to present ‘‘a sources in other states and their degree 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included coherent or defensible justification’’ for of control as part of developing their in our visibility protection regulations at its interpretation of section respective programs to protect visibility. 40 CFR 51.300–309. States were 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in the proposal, and The proposal articulated our basis for required to submit the first SIP that EPA failed to explain adequately its proposing to interpret the requirement addressing RH visibility impairment no interpretation of CAA section of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to mean that later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and the relationship the state’s SIP must contain at least 51.308(b). between that provision, as interpreted those emission reductions that other We disagree with the argument that by the Agency, and CAA sections 169A states would have relied upon from New because section 169A and B create a and 169B. In addition, the commenter Mexico sources in the development of specific program for protection of asserted that EPA has no basis to their reasonable progress goals in their visibility, that compels the conclusion disapprove the state’s section respective visibility programs. that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) could not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52418 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

have any substantive bearing on this on visibility from the interstate to await submission and approval of issue. Such an argument is at odds with transport of pollutants, we thus such RH SIPs before evaluating SIPs for the clear provisions of the statute, and interpret the ‘‘good neighbor’’ compliance with section with the structure of the CAA. Section provisions of section 110 of the Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) was in error. Our 2006 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires described above as requiring states to Guidance was clearly intended to make that SIPs shall include adequate include in their SIPs measures to recommendations that were relevant at provisions ‘‘prohibiting * * * any prohibit emissions that would interfere that point in time, and subsequent source * * * within the State from with the reasonable progress goals of the events have rendered it inappropriate in emitting any air pollutant in amounts RH program set to protect Class I areas this specific action. which will * * * interfere with in other states of the RH program. In short, we must act upon the state’s measures required to be included in the Finally, we disagree with the submission in light of the actual facts, applicable implementation plan for any commenter’s views concerning the and in light of the statutory other State under part C * * * to state’s September 2007, submission requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). protect visibility.’’ (Emphasis added). complying with the Agency’s 2006 Whereas our prior recommendations Because sections 169A and 169B guidance, and even if it had complied were prospectively anticipating the establish the national goal for visibility with that guidance, the purported legal submission of the RH SIP as a means of protection, including RH issues, we significance of that fact for purposes of the state imposing the controls infer that when Congress included this action. As the commenters necessary on New Mexico sources protection of required visibility themselves conceded, the state’s 2007 necessary to prevent interference with programs in other states as part of submission stated that it would make a the required visibility programs of other section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), it was a timely RH SIP submission by December states, those recommendations are conscious reference to the sections in of 2007 as its intended means of inappropriate at this juncture. In order the CAA that address that matter. meeting the requirements of section to evaluate whether the state’s SIP Indeed, in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility, but due currently in fact contains provisions Congress directed us to prevent to intervening events the state did not sufficient to prevent the prohibited interference with the ‘‘measures in fact do so prior to our proposed impacts on the required programs of required to be included in the action. Contrary to the commenter’s other states, we are obligated to consider applicable implementation plan for any views, that submission was not factually the current circumstances and other State under part C of this chapter consistent with the recommendations of investigate the level of controls at New * * * to protect visibility,’’ and the RH the guidance.65 Mexico sources and whether those program is unequivocally among those More importantly, however, our 2006 controls are or are not sufficient to required measures to protect visibility. guidance reflected our prevent such impacts. Thus, it is reasonable for EPA to recommendations for how states could We similarly disagree with the evaluate whether the SIP of a given state potentially meet the section commenters’ argument that it is still prohibits emissions, consistent with 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement at that ‘‘premature’’ to evaluate the compliance what other states will have developed point in time. As of August 2006, we of the state’s SIP at this time, and that their own visibility programs in reliance stated our belief that it was ‘‘currently’’ we ‘‘must await the date on which upon. premature for states to make a more regional haze SIPs have been submitted It is illogical to conclude that substantive SIP submission for this and approved.’’ First, this approach is Congress would have explicitly directed element, because of the anticipated illogical, as it fails to address what us to assure that state SIPs contain imminent RH SIP submissions. We would happen if a state were never to provisions to protect visibility programs explicitly stated that ‘‘at this point in submit the required RH SIP, or were in other states, but that we not have the time’’ in August of 2006, it was not never to submit a RH SIP that was authority to require such provisions as possible to assess whether emissions approvable. On its face, the part of a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) SIP from sources in the state would interfere commenter’s argument is simply submission, or if necessary to supply with measures in the SIPs of other inconsistent with the objectives of the them as part of a FIP. Such an argument states. As subsequent events have statute to protect visibility programs in is also clearly inconsistent with the demonstrated, we were mistaken as to other states if a state never submits an other prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). the assumption that all states would approvable RH SIP. Second, this The mere existence of other statutory submit RH SIPs in December of 2007 approach is flatly inconsistent with the programs to provide for attainment and and mistaken as to the assumption that timing requirements of section 110(a)(1) maintenance of the NAAQS required in all such submissions would meet which specifies that SIP submissions to part D of the Act, does not negate the applicable RH program requirements address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requirement that states also meet the and therefore be approved shortly including the visibility prong of that requirement of the ‘‘significant thereafter. Thus the premise of the 2006 section, must be made within three contribution to nonattainment’’ and Guidance that it would be appropriate years after the promulgation of a new or ‘‘interference with maintenance’’ prongs revised NAAQS. We acknowledge that there have been delays with both RH of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of authority of EPA to require substantive Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone; Final Rule,’’ SIP submissions by states and our provisions in the SIP, or to promulgate 63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998, (the NOx SIP Call). actions on those RH SIP submissions, a FIP to provide them, as may be 65 Subsequent to the proposal for this action, and but that fact does not support a reading subsequent to the commenter’s comments, the state of the statute that overrides the timing necessary. We have exercised such did make a RH SIP submission on July 5, 2011, one authority and issued SIP calls or month before we have to finalize rulemaking either requirements of the statute. We believe promulgated FIPs to assure that state by promulgating a FIP or reviewing, proposing a that there are means available now to SIPs meet the requirements of section rulemaking and promulgating a final action fully evaluate whether a state’s section 64 approving the SIP, as required by the August 5, 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(II) SIP submission meets 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Because of the impacts 2011 consent decree deadline. Nevertheless, the commenter was clearly in error given that there was the substantive requirement that it 64 See, e.g., ‘‘Finding of Significant Contribution no submission purporting to meet the requirements contain provisions to prohibit and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone of the RH program as of the time of its comments. interference with the visibility programs

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52419

of other states, and therefore that further NOX emission limit that meets both Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for New delay, until all RH SIPs are submitted requirements at this time, rather than Mexico, and that EPA should account and fully approved, is unwarranted and postponing action on this RH SIP for a broader range of causes of visibility inconsistent with the key objective to requirement. We are only determining impairment when considering protect visibility. that the SJGS is subject to BART and regulating interference with other states’ Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(II) directs EPA promulgating the NOX BART FIP for the visibility. According to the commenter, to evaluate the SIP of a state for SJGS. We are not addressing whether EPA’s action should consider future adequate controls on emissions from the New Mexico has met the requirements growth in emissions from area sources state to prevent interference with of the RHR for any other sources; we are such as oil and gas development as part measures ‘‘required to be included in not addressing whether the SJGS is of evaluating interference with the the applicable state implementation meeting the RH BART requirements for visibility programs required in other plan’’ of other states. Thus, this any other pollutants; and we will states’ SIPs because the proposed New evaluation is supposed to consider what address those requirements in later Mexico RH SIP already reduces NOX other states should have in their SIPs as actions. emissions sufficiently. The commenter of this point in time, and is not limited We have the specific authority to also argued that pollutants other than by the fact that other states may or may promulgate a FIP imposing a NOX BART NOX cause interference with other not have made the required RH SIP emission limitation upon the SJGS states’ visibility programs and should be submission, nor by the fact that we may because we previously found that New considered instead of reducing NOX or may not have approved those RH SIP Mexico had failed to submit a complete emissions under BART because the submissions at this point in time. RH SIP by December 17, 2007. 74 FR commenter believes NOX emissions Instead, we must evaluate the state’s 2392 (January 15, 2009). This finding contribute a minor portion to overall section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) submission in started a two year clock for the visibility impairment. light of the programs that states are promulgation of a RH FIP by EPA or the Response: We disagree with the required to have, and that clearly approval of a complete RH SIP from assertion that we took too narrow a view includes the RH program required in New Mexico. CAA section 110(c)(1). of the term ‘‘interfere’’ in Section other states. As discussed above, we The FIP obligation imposed upon us 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In the FIP proposed believe that one means to evaluate this became effective on February 15, 2011. and finalized in this action, we are issue is to determine whether the level Part of that FIP obligation includes concluding that the New Mexico SIP of controls in the SIP are consistent with making a NOX BART determination for contains adequate provisions to prevent the expectations for controls at New the SJGS. To prevent a possible conflict such impacts on the visibility programs Mexico sources relied upon by other between a NOX visibility transport of other states, except for the emissions states in the development of their own emission limitation FIP for the SJGS and from the SJGS. By promulgating a FIP to respective visibility programs and the NOX RH BART emission limitation impose NOX and SO2 emission limits consistent with the needs for emissions FIP for the SJGS, we chose to necessary at the SJGS to prevent such reductions that we ourselves conclude promulgate now, rather than later, the interference, as well as to meet the are needed for purposes of the RH NOX RH BART determination for the requirement for BART for NOX for this program. SJGS. We are combining the same source, EPA is addressing the Comment: The proposed FIP requires requirements of section requirements of the statute. In reaching exceedingly stringent and expensive 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for NOX with a NOX this conclusion, we considered the term compliance obligations that are not BART evaluation (40 CFR 51.308) to be ‘‘interfere’’ based upon the facts, adequately legally supported because efficient and provide greater certainty to information, and data available to the the proposed FIP fails to adequately the source as to the appropriate NOX Agency at this time. satisfy the interstate transport controls needed to meet those two As we discuss in our proposal, we provisions of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of separate but related requirements. relied on WRAP modeling to determine the CAA or the provisions of the RHR. This FIP also will impose a federally the appropriate emission limits for Response: We disagree that the FIP is enforceable limit on the emissions of sources in New Mexico in order to not legally supported. The FIP satisfies SO2 from the SJGS based upon the determine if New Mexico’s emissions provisions in both section WRAP determination of each member were interfering with other state 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA regarding state’s contribution to visibility visibility SIPs. The states in the West, interstate transport of pollutants impairment of SO2 emissions, of which including New Mexico, worked together affecting visibility in other states and for New Mexico is a member. The SJGS’s through the WRAP to determine their the NOX BART determination for the existing SO2 permit does not provide contribution to visibility impairment at SJGS, the RHR. the necessary emission limits and the relevant Federal Class I areas in the We find that the emissions from the enforceable mechanisms to ensure the region and the emissions reductions SJGS in New Mexico are interfering SO2 emissions used in the WRAP from each State needed to attain the with the other states’ required measures photochemical modeling for the SJGS reasonable progress goals for each area. to protect visibility. Therefore, we are units will be met. Therefore, we Western states are relying on the WRAP imposing through the FIP, specific assumed the SO2 emission limit used in assumed reduction in emissions levels emission limits upon the SJGS to the WRAP modeling and, by this action, modeled for sources in New Mexico prevent such interference. We are make it enforceable. This is necessary to including the SJGS in order to meet imposing an SO2 limit and a NOX limit. ensure that New Mexico sources do not their RH reasonable progress goals. All To provide greater certainty to the SJGS interfere with efforts to protect visibility of the sources except for SJGS met the that controls needed to prevent in other states pursuant to the WRAP assumed reduction in emissions interference with other states’ visibility requirements of section levels modeled for New Mexico’s programs, as well as the controls needed 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. assigned contribution to the region’s to meet the RHR’s BART requirements, Comment: One commenter argued visibility impairment of Federal class I do not conflict with each other and end that EPA took too narrow an areas. Thus, we proposed a FIP to up imposing unnecessary greater costs interpretation of the term ‘‘interfere’’ in prevent emissions from New Mexico upon the SJGS, we are imposing a BART the visibility protection context of sources from interfering with other

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52420 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

states’ measures to protect visibility, impairment.’’ 66 Therefore, we do not Mexico did not timely formulate and and to implement NOX and SO2 view a cumulative visibility impairment submit its BART determinations, we emission limits necessary at one source, of 21.69 dv as an insignificant have the authority and responsibility to the SJGS, to prevent such interference, contribution. The commenter suggests make a NOX BART determination for as well as BART for NOX for this source. we consider future growth in emissions SJGS. from area sources such as oil and gas Comment: One commenter argues that We determined that enacting a NOX BART determination for SJGS was development as part of our control an evaluation of the amount of necessary because the WRAP analyses strategy. We agree with the commenter reasonable progress expected to be that oil and gas activity in New Mexico showed that NO emissions in general achieved in the Class I areas by other X produces NO and other emissions. We and SJGS NO emissions, specifically, X control measures is required before the X understand the WRAP is currently contribute significantly to haze in the amount of reasonable progress needed reviewing and refining the emissions West. SJGS is by far the largest source from BART at the SJGS should be inventory for this sector. We will determined. Under the CAA, BART is of NOX emissions in NM. Our FIP address this matter further in our review not expected to be the maximum degree requires substantial reductions in NOX of New Mexico’s RH SIP. emissions from this source. We agree of emissions reduction technologically that oil and gas development can result 2. BART Requirements feasible. In fact, it may be lower if in emissions that could have an impact reasonable progress from other CAA Comment: One commenter states programs is sufficient. on visibility due to increases in NOX ‘‘EPA’s BART determination for the San Response: We believe BART to be a emissions. However, we are basing our Juan Generating Station contravenes severable piece of the RHR that can be evaluation of the potential impacts of EPA’s rules and conflicts with the evaluated on its own. BART can be a emissions from New Mexico sources on structure and purpose of CAA Section part of a reasonable progress strategy, the WRAP analysis, and consideration 169A.’’ Following this comment, there and controls imposed under other CAA of the sources that other states would appears a parenthetical ‘‘see’’ reference requirements can be considered to be have assumed that New Mexico to comments that had been submitted intended to control as part of that from two other commenters. BART. In fact, as we discuss elsewhere modeling. The state’s initial submission Response: The comment does not give in our response to comments, we did for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) indicated that any underlying rationale or facts for its evaluate the existing controls at the the state intended to meet its obligations assertion that our action contravenes SJGS, but found them inadequate to with respect to the visibility prong by our rules and conflicts with CAA satisfy NOX BART. However, there is not any requirement in the RHR that means of the RH SIP. Therefore, we Section 169A. We disagree with the would require we first make an have examined the issue in light of what statement, because the NOX BART evaluation of reasonable progress prior other states would have assumed such determination for the SJGS was made in to conducting a BART evaluation, nor is a SIP would achieve. Moreover, even if accordance with our rules and CAA there any consideration of lessening the the impacts from the oil and gas sector requirements. The references to degree of a potential BART control in were significant, this fact would not subsections of other submitted light of other CAA programs. justify a decision to not act on the BART comments do not appear to match with Comment: One commenter alleges our requirements for NO for the SJGS, the comments we had received. We X proposed rule improperly requires because NO emissions from SJGS are a cannot further evaluate or respond to X BART for the San Juan Generating significant source of NO emissions that this comment. In any event, the other X Station under Section 110 of the CAA interfere with other state’s required comments are separately addressed in and not Section 169A. While we visibility programs. In addition, based this document. propose to act under the ‘‘good on the facts and information currently Comment: One commenter states that neighbor’’ provision in Section 110 of available, we believe the most effective our proposed rule must be withdrawn the CAA, the commenter alleges, EPA means of ensuring that emissions from because it fails to justify ‘‘appears to selectively borrow’’ the New Mexico do not interfere with other implementation of a SCR BART limit. BART requirement from the RH program states’ visibility programs is to require This commenter cites to a portion of established under Section 169A to do further and federally enforceable NO American Corn Growers v. EPA, 291 X what ‘‘neither section could do alone.’’ reductions and federally enforceable F.3d 1, 19 (DC Cir. 2002), where the DC Circuit wrote of state’s having ‘‘broad One commenter states Congress SO2 limits at SJGS. authority over BART determinations.’’ intended BART to be one part of a We also specifically disagree with the The commenter also points to that ‘‘comprehensive, long-term strategy for commenter’s statement that NOX court’s discussion of legislative history, addressing RH in Class I areas.’’ The emissions contribute only a minor where it stated that ‘‘* * * Congress commenter asserts that BART is more portion to overall visibility impairment. intended the states to decide which stringent than 169A requires, because it As we noted in our proposal, our sources impair visibility and what is being used ‘‘out of context’’ in a modeling indicates that the visibility BART controls should apply to those limited Section 110 program designed to impairment due to the SJGS’s emissions sources.’’ Id. at 8. From this, the ensure one state does not interfere with is primarily dominated by nitrate commenter states that the authority of another state’s air quality plans. The particulates. As our NOX BART states to establish BART cannot be commenter feels the approach we use is modeling demonstrates, reducing NOX constrained by us. a partial or piecemeal implementation emissions from the SJGS will result in Response: While a State has broad of the RH program, which is contrary to a 21.69 dv, cumulative improvement, authority over a BART determination the integrated, comprehensive decision- across 16 Class I areas. As the RHR when it is the decision maker, we making that 169A envisions. Because states, ‘‘States should consider a 1.0 similarly have broad authority when requirements of Section 110 and the deciview change or more from an promulgating a FIP. Because, as Section 169A were not kept separate individual source to ‘‘cause’’ visibility discussed earlier in this notice, New from each other, the commenter feels impairment, and a change of 0.5 our proposal is substantively and deciviews to ‘‘contribute’’ to 66 70 FR 39104, 39120. procedurally flawed and fails to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52421

properly implement the programs under reflect the differences between those our proposed NOX BART both sections. two facilities. determinations for Oklahoma 68 and the Response: We are not requiring NOX Response: We agree with the NOX BART determination we proposed BART for the SJGS under section 110 of commenters that a consistent method of for the SJGS should be similar. The cost the CAA. We are requiring NOX BART analysis should apply for all BART of controls must be compared to the for the SJGS under section 169A and the evaluations, and we believe the use of expected visibility benefits, and those RHR. Further, we disagree with the the BART Guidelines ensures that benefits from the potential installation statement that BART requirements were occurs. However, we see no reason to of SCR on sources in Oklahoma were selectively borrowed from the RH conclude the outcomes of these analyses predicted to be much less than what we program or that any provisions were should be prejudged to necessarily have expect to result from the installation of selectively borrowed or considered out any relationship to each other. We note SCR at the SJGS. In fact, the visibility of context. In making the BART that the differences the first commenter benefit (or lack thereof) from the determination, we first looked to RHR mentions, such as existing pollution installation of SCRs on the Oklahoma requirements and determined SJGS is control equipment and site congestion, BART sources is so small that we did BART eligible for NOX at each affected were factored into our SJGS NOX BART not see the need to refine the cost emissions unit. We then established visibility modeling (baseline emissions) estimate by investigating the feasibility BART for those units under the RH Rule and cost evaluation, respectively. Also, of a lower NOX emission limit. Our and the Guidelines for BART concerning the amount of review time conclusion in no way implies we Determinations found in Appendix Y of (e.g., comment period), our consent accepted the SCR cost estimate at face 40 CFR part 51. Because our BART decree deadline prevents us from value—only that we did not see the determination is in accordance with the extending the comment period more need to refine it. With regard to the guidelines, it is not any more stringent than we already have, which was almost different BART compliance schedules due to the additional action under a month over our initial 60 day period. between our proposals, we believed in Section 110. Moreover, as discussed We disagree with the first commenter SJGS’s case that the expected visibility elsewhere, we do not agree our that we failed to properly consider the benefits were so significant that the determination is procedurally or NOX emission limit the units of the controls should be installed ‘‘as substantively flawed because it is not SJGS can reliably attain. Elsewhere in expeditiously as practicable.’’ 40 CFR comprehensive enough. While other our response to comments, we present 51.308(e)(1)(iv). As we discuss commenters have suggested that we detailed information that documents elsewhere in our response to comments, should proceed to determine BART for these units can reliably meet a NOX we have modified the compliance other pollutants, we are finalizing a BART emission limit of 0.05 lbs/ schedule. We are finalizing a schedule NOX BART determination for the SJGS MMBtu. In our analysis, we see no which requires compliance with the and will address other RH requirements information in the record that causes us emission limits within 5 years—rather in a separate future action. Therefore, to conclude there are any site specific than 3 years—from the effective date of we do not agree that the action under issues that would prevent the units of our final rule. Section 110 and the determination the SJGS from attaining this emission Comment: Some commenters have under Section 169A have created any limit. Lastly, as we discuss elsewhere in stated that the proposed FIP does not conflict or flaw in the implementation our response to comments, we have satisfy other requirements of the RH of either program. modified the compliance schedule. We Program. Comment: A commenter states that find that compliance with the emission Response: We are acting on a portion although a similar analytical approach limits for the SJGS should be within 5 of the State’s SIP revision addressing is appropriate, the outcome of the BART years of the effective date of our final Interstate Transport requirements, analysis for the SJGS should differ from rule. We note that the compliance the proposed BART determination for schedule for the Four Corners Power specifically visibility. We are not acting the Four Corners Power Plant. Plant is now being analyzed under a upon a state RH SIP submittal. The only Commenter agrees that a consistent ‘‘better than BART’’ scenario according RH requirement on which we are acting method of analysis should apply. to section 51.308(e)(2)–(3), which is to make a NOX BART determination However, it disagrees that the outcomes provides for a possibly longer time for the SJGS and promulgate a NOX of the analyses must be the same, given period for the installation of controls.67 BART FIP for the SJGS under the RHR. the meaningful differences between the Comment: The proposed FIP for SJGS We have made clear in our proposal that two facilities. For example, the site is entirely inconsistent with the FIP we will later act on the rest of the RH congestion is a much greater concern at proposed for six units in Oklahoma by requirements. the SJGS than at Four Corners. EPA EPA. Given the similarity of the BART Comment: One commenter states that should reconsider the emission limit it determinations made by the state of the requirement to install SCR at the assumed for San Juan in the site- Oklahoma and the BART determination SJGS is a fatally flawed and unnecessary specific, plant-wide manner employed prepared for San Juan by PNM’s approach to RH reduction, and that the by Region 9. consultant, and the significant FIP is not consistent with the law, Another commenter states the difference between those determinations science, economics, or prudent proposal fails to consider other BART- and EPA’s proposed FIP, commenter engineering practice. eligible sources or other emission asks EPA to reconsider its BART Response: While we appreciate control strategies. In addition, the analysis for SJGS using the method of Commenter’s general concern about the commenter is concerned that our analysis applied in Oklahoma. control equipment for RH reduction, the proposed FIP for the SJGS may have Response: We disagree that the results Commenter did not provide any specific been inappropriately influenced by the (e.g., emission limits and controls) of examples in the record to be able to FIP proposed for Four Corners Power adequately respond to this generalized Plant by Region 9. Although the overall 67 Supplemental Proposed Rule of Source statement. It should be noted that EPA’s analytical approach must be consistent, Specific Federal Implementation Plan for action establishes emission limits that Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology the commenter argues, the final for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation, 76 FR determinations should be different to 10530. 68 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52422 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

may be met with SCR but it does not FR 51735, October 4, 1993) as it only have tribal implications, as specified in mandate specific control equipment. applies to one facility and is not a rule Executive Order 13175, because this Comment: A commenter states that of general applicability. Therefore, this action does not impose federally our BART analysis should be only about action is not subject to review under the enforceable emissions limitations on visibility and not public health Executive Order. any source located on tribal lands, and concerns, which can be misleading. Comment: One commenter states that neither imposes substantial direct Response: We agree with the the proposed rulemaking is contrary to compliance costs on tribal governments, commenter that our action should be, Executive Order 13563 (Improving nor preempts tribal law. However, in and in fact is, about protecting visibility. Regulation and Regulatory Review) of response to this comment, we engaged We derive our authority for this action January 18, 2011 and as such we should in government-to-government both under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of consider the cost of promulgating the consultation at the request of the Navajo the CAA and the RHR. In so doing, rule and take the least burdensome path Nation regarding this rule and the although we do note the ancillary public among different options. Nation’s previously submitted health benefits resulting from Response: Executive Order 13563 is comments. controlling the same pollutants that supplemental to and reaffirms the 4. Other General Legal Comments cause visibility, we have not considered principles, structures, and definitions those benefits in arriving at our governing contemporary regulatory Comment: A number of commenters decision. review that were established in have requested that we should approve Executive Order 12866 of September 30, the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP 3. Executive Orders Comments 1993. The President issued the previously submitted in 2007 as it Comment: The MSR Public Power referenced Order on January 18, 2011, satisfies both our policy and our Agency (MSR) disagrees with our after we issued our proposed Consent Decree with WildEarth findings under the Unfunded Mandates rulemaking. In general, the Order seeks Guardians. Another commenter states Reform Act of 1995 that the proposed to ensure the regulatory process is based that we have no sound basis in any FIP does not contain a federal mandate on the best available science; allows for event for disapproving New Mexico’s that may result in expenditures by state, public participation and an open SIP revision under the visibility clause local, or tribal governments that exceed exchange of ideas; promotes of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), as that SIP the inflation-adjusted threshold of $100 predictability and reduces uncertainty; revision simply carries out our own million ($100 million in 1995 dollars) or identifies and uses the best, most guidance to the states. more in any one year thus triggering a innovative, and least burdensome tools Another commenter stated that our written assessment of the costs and for achieving regulatory ends; and takes proposal to adopt a FIP before NM benefits of the proposed FIP. MSR into account benefits and costs, both completes its ongoing rulemaking believes that the cost of retrofitting the quantitative and qualitative. However, process to adopt a RH SIP is premature four units at the SJGS is closer to PNM’s nothing in the Order shall be construed and deprives the state of its significant estimated cost of $908 million. to impair or otherwise affect the discretion to establish and administer Response: The Unfunded Mandates authority granted by law to the Agency. its own RH program. Reform Act (UMRA) requires that Although this Order was issued after Response: We disagree that we should Federal agencies assess the effects of our proposed rulemaking, in our review approve the SIP submitted in 2007 Federal regulations on State, local, and process the cost of compliance was one because it satisfies both our policy and tribal governments and the private of the elements addressed to ensure that the WEG Consent Decree. Our consent sector. In particular, UMRA requires the requirements to achieve the goals decree with WEG requires that by that agencies prepare a written stated in the CAA were beneficial and August 5, 2011, we must approve a SIP, statement to accompany any rulemaking not burdensome to the regulated entity. promulgate a FIP, or approve a SIP in that ‘‘includes any Federal mandate that Please refer elsewhere in our response part with promulgation of a partial FIP may result in the expenditure by State, to comments for a detailed analysis of for New Mexico to meet the requirement local, and tribal governments, in the the elements required by our regulations of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding aggregate, or by the private sector, of for BART determinations. interfering with measures in other states $100,000,000 or more (annually Comment: The Navajo Nation EPA related to protection of visibility. As adjusted for inflation) in any one year’’ commented that the FIP proposal has stated elsewhere in this notice, New (Section 202(a)). Our revised cost tribal implications as specified in Mexico’s 2007 submittal fails to meet estimate indicates that the Total Annual Executive Order 13175, and that this requirement. That SIP anticipated Cost is $39,265,670.69 Therefore, we consultation is required because of the the timely submission of a substantive have determined that we are below this impacts to Navajo workers, contractors, RH SIP, which was due by December 17, threshold, even without adjusting it for and subcontractors at San Juan 2007, as the means of meeting this inflation. In other words, even if the Generating Station and the San Juan requirement. Because until recently that entire Total Annual Cost of the Mine. RH SIP was not submitted, we had no installation of SCRs on the units of the Response: Executive Order 13175, choice but to seek other means of SJGS were ascribed to one entity, we do entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination satisfying our WEG consent decree not believe the UMRA threshold would with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR deadline of August 5, 2011. be triggered. 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), relates to Because states were late in their RH Comment: Once commenter states consultations with tribal governments SIP submissions, on January 15, 2009, that we should not ignore Executive by federal agencies. As directed by the we published a ‘‘Finding of Failure to Order 12866. Executive Order, EPA has recently Submit State Implementation Plans Response: This action is not a issued a new policy entitled EPA Policy Required by the 1999 regional haze ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under for Consultation and Coordination with rule.’’ 74 FR 2392. In New Mexico’s the terms of Executive Order 12866, (58 Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011), which re- case, this finding included sections 40 establishes and clarifies EPA’s process CFR 51.309(g) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 69 See Exhibit 1 RTC Revised Cost Analysis, lines for consulting with tribes. We have Section 51.309(d)(4)(vii) states that the 91, Cost Analysis Fox. concluded that this final rule does not implementation plan must contain any

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52423

necessary long term strategies and certain facilities install BART to protect New Mexico that was not sufficiently BART requirements for stationary visibility in national parks and controlled to eliminate interference with source PM and NOX emissions. Any wilderness areas. The visibility problem the visibility programs of other states. such BART provisions may be in these areas of great scenic importance Our review and the State’s first submitted pursuant to either has been recognized as a significant focused on BART eligible sources § 51.308(e)(1) or § 51.308(e)(2). issue by policymakers from Federal, because these are sources first This finding started a 2-year clock, State and local agencies, industry and considered for control in State Regional which expired on January 15, 2011, for environmental organizations.70 Haze Plans. In May 2006, NMED the promulgation of a RH FIP by us, Technical data, that are part of the conducted an internal review of sources unless those states, including New record, evidence that emissions of SO2 that met the regulatory definition Mexico, made a RH SIP submission and and NOX from the SJGS are interfering ‘‘BART-eligible’’ source set forth in 40 we approved it. Therefore, we had full with efforts to protect visibility in other CFR 51.301.71 The State identified 11 authority to promulgate a FIP for the states, as well as impacting Class I areas facilities that were BART-eligible. The State of New Mexico that included a within NM. WRAP performed the initial BART NOX BART determination for the SJGS. CALPUFF screening modeling for the In response to the second commenter, P. Modeling Comments state of New Mexico. The modeling was we do not view it as premature to take Comment: The San Juan Coal performed for each of the 11 sources action on one element of the RH Company (SJCC) commented that EPA and their combined SO2, NOX, and PM requirements at this time. We chose to compared the emission levels of both emissions. The purpose of this BART exercise this authority to conduct a NOX New Mexico’s 2018 projected emissions CALPUFF screening modeling was to BART review of the SJGS, as a partial and New Mexico’s current emissions determine whether any of these 11 route forward in satisfying our consent that were developed for the WRAP sources ‘‘emits any air pollutant which decree with WEG. photochemical modeling. EPA relied may reasonably be anticipated to cause Although we subsequently received upon that comparison to determine that or contribute to any impairment of the New Mexico submittal on July 5, all of the sources in New Mexico are visibility’’ in any Federal Class I area. 2011, we simply have arrived at a point achieving the emission levels assumed Consistent with the BART Guidelines, where we do not have the time to stop by WRAP in its modeling except for the this WRAP initial BART CALPUFF our action, review that SIP, propose a SJGS. SJCC alleged that EPA’s summary screening modeling evaluated the 98th rulemaking, take and address public of that analysis presents no relevant percentile visibility impacts at any Class comment, and promulgate a final action data to support the Agency’s I area from each of these 11 sources. as defined in the consent decree. conclusion. Because the WRAP Using 0.5 dv as the significance Comment: One commenter alleges inventories are so extensive and threshold, of the 11 sources, only one that our statement that the SJGS is more difficult to research and review, EPA at source’s visibility impacts at any Class than 30 years old and needs to update a minimum should have provided I area due to its combined SO2, NOX, its control equipment is inaccurate. copies of the State’s emissions and PM emissions was above the 0.5 dv Response: As explained elsewhere in inventories that were reviewed and the significance threshold (i.e., PNM’s SJGS this notice and our proposal, our data specific emissions data for SJGS that Boilers #1–4). Of the 10 other sources, supports the need for the SJGS to retrofit supports EPA’s conclusion. SJCC stated none were above a 0.33 dv impact. their sources of emissions to meet the that EPA should not have put the Consequently, only the PNM’s SJGS requirements of the CAA. burden of interpreting the WRAP Boilers #1–4 were determined by NMED Comment: One commenter argues that technical support documents on the to be emitting pollutants contributing to the Administrative Procedures Act is reader. Furthermore, in light of the impairment of visibility in any Federal not adequate regarding impacts on small substantial number and different types Class I area and therefore were subject governmental entities. of emission sources throughout New to BART. We note in the BART Response: This final rulemaking only Mexico, our conclusion is suspect. EPA Guidelines that states (and by extension addresses the disapproval of a portion of must produce the specific emissions EPA when promulgating a FIP) have the SIP revision submitted by the State information for SJGS and for all other flexibility in determining an appropriate of New Mexico for the purpose of emission sources in the State, which threshold for determining whether a addressing the visibility prong of the isolates SJGS as the only reason for New source contributes to any visibility Interstate Transport rule. See elsewhere Mexico’s interstate interference with impairment for the purposes of BART. in our response to comments for a visibility protection. However, this threshold should not be detailed description of what is Response: While we did point in the higher than 0.5 dv. As discussed in the addressed in this Final Action. proposed rule to the WRAP Web site as TSD, based on modeling sensitivities, Therefore, comments related to the a reference for the emission data that we even if we re-ran the BART CALPUFF Administrative Procedures Act and how reviewed and compared, we also screening modeling for the other 10 it is not adequate regarding the impacts developed a complete TSD, and sources, the conclusion reached by both to small businesses are outside the included some of the spreadsheets for New Mexico and EPA would be scope of our proposed action. 2002, i.e., the ‘‘current’’ emissions and unlikely to change. Therefore, these Comment: One commenter alleges for the projected 2018 emissions, in the facilities are not subject to BART. As that ‘‘Federal forces’’ create air docket for the proposed rule. such, New Mexico did not propose regulations to solve a problem that Specifically, in Chapters 2 (BART additional controls for these facilities doesn’t exist and threatens our county’s Eligible Determination), 3 (Subject-to- nor did the WRAP modeling include livelihood. BART Determination) and 4 (BART additional reductions for these 10 Response: This rulemaking is the Guidelines and Modeling Protocols) of result of CAA requirements that a SIP the TSD we discussed the WRAP’s 71 BART-eligible sources are those sources, which must have adequate provisions to CALPUFF screening modeling and why have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a prohibit emissions from adversely visibility-impairing air pollutant, that were put in we identified SJGS as the only source in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, affecting another state’s air quality and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 through interstate transport and that 70 See RHR, 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). specifically listed source categories.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52424 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

sources. These 10 sources are supported by accepted and agreed upon provides an appropriate means for sufficiently controlled to eliminate emissions inventory projection evaluating whether emissions from interference with other states’ visibility methodologies in combination with sources in a state are interfering with programs. regulations or other limitations and the visibility programs of other states, as Our review and the States’ were based on the data available at the contemplated in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) particularly focused on sources time. This information was publicly of the Act. In developing their visibility potentially subject to BART because in available for review on the WRAP Web projections using photochemical grid developing RH plans, sources subject to site. modeling, the WRAP states assumed a BART were a particular focus for States Therefore, we adequately explained certain level of emissions from sources in projecting emission reductions. After why our action is limited to the SJGS. within New Mexico. The visibility the running of the WRAP initial BART In addition, the information we relied projection modeling was in turn used by CALPUFF screening modeling that on to reach our conclusions is available the states to establish their own identified the one source subject to to the public and was validated by a respective reasonable progress goals. We BART, the WRAP ran photochemical voluntary group of state, federal and evaluated the planned emission modeling for all the sources in the entire local air agencies dealing with regional reductions from point sources in New region for the base year (2002) and the air quality issues. Relying on WRAP Mexico assumed in the WRAP 2018 future year (2018). The WRAP data provides consistency of analyses modeling. But for SJGS, the WRAP participating states based their RH throughout the Western states, and projections were supported by accepted reasonable progress goals and long-term assures that our decisions are not and agreed upon emissions inventory strategies upon this photochemical arbitrary. Thus, EPA’s decision is based projection methodologies and/or modeling and its inputs, particularly the on data to support that the SJGS is the regulations or other limitations and future year projections for all of the only source that requires the enforceable were based on the data available at the sources in the region. All the measures in this action to ensure time. As a result of the initial BART participating WRAP states agreed to the reductions needed to meet the analysis performed by the WRAP, emissions input for the base and future anticipated level of emissions relied identifying SJGS as subject-to-BART, years. These states are relying upon the upon in the WRAP modeling. and consultation with New Mexico, the WRAP photochemical modeling’s future Comment: SJCC contests EPA’s WRAP photochemical modeling year projected emissions from all the conclusion that SJGS is the only source included anticipated reductions in sources in the region to establish their in New Mexico continuing to contribute emissions at the SJGS. The reductions at Reasonable Progress Goals. In to visibility impairment in other states SJGS were the only additional consultation with New Mexico, the because EPA reached this conclusion reductions that other states relied upon WRAP photochemical modeling without comparing all the New Mexico occurring that NMED would require in included anticipated reductions in sources’ current emissions in the WRAP their RH/BART SIP. The WRAP’s emissions at the SJGS. Through the modeling with their projected 2018 photochemical modeling that was WRAP consultation process, New emissions. In addition, EPA did not use performed to yield daily (24-hour) Mexico provided the anticipated future the annual emissions value in the ‘‘core visibility impairment impacts adjusted year projected emissions from SJGS to emission inventories’’ presented in the the future year NOX emissions from be 0.27 lb/MMBtu for units 1 and 3 and WRAP modeling for the SJGS reported SJGS after input from NMED and PNM 0.28 lb/MMBtu for units 2 and 4. Other in tons per year (tpy). The commenter to 0.27 lb/MMBtu for units 1 and 3 and WRAP states are relying on the levels states that EPA performed its 0.28 lb/MMBtu for units 2 and 4. modeled for the SJGS units, developed comparison by using emission rates in PNM has subsequently indicated that in consultation, in their demonstration terms of units of pounds per British they cannot meet these relied-upon of reasonable progress plans towards thermal unit (lbs/MMBtu) for the SJGS. emission rates without installing natural visibility conditions. New The commenter continues to allege that additional control equipment and the Mexico, however, did not adopt limits in addition to using lbs/MMBtu rather actual achievable emission rate is to insure that the levels assumed for than the annual emissions, EPA approximately 0.30 lb of NOX/MMBtu SJGS in the WRAP modeling would be apparently, further adjusted SJGS’s on a longer-term basis (30 day rolling achieved. This discrepancy from what current emissions that were in the average) as currently reflected in their other States assumed is a particular WRAP modeling to account for a shorter permit and 0.33 lb of NOX/MMBtu on a concern because, as discussed averaging time because the WRAP shorter-term basis. Clearly, the previously, SJGS, was found in the averaging periods were unenforceable. difference between what was assumed BART modeling to, by itself, contribute This methodology was not applied to by the WRAP and what is actually being significantly to visibility impairment. any other source. SJCC claims that if achieved and is enforceable should not Our review of the WRAP BART EPA had applied this methodology to be ignored. CALPUFF screening modeling and the other New Mexico sources, it is We disagree that our use of lbs/ analysis for sources potentially subject extremely likely that EPA would have MMBtu versus the annual emissions to BART in New Mexico is well needed to adjust their current levels as rate compromised our evaluation. There documented in the TSD as described well. Therefore, EPA’s comparison is no compromise in integrity using the above. In addition, as part of our review, analysis is flawed, and EPA cannot lbs/MMBtu versus using an annual we evaluated the methodologies used by assume that the SJGS is the only source emission rate, since the annual NOX WRAP in developing their future year in the State (or within the WRAP region emission rate for each EGU in the emissions projections for the WRAP for that matter) whose current emissions WRAP photochemical modeling is photochemical modeling. The have not been specified on a basis that calculated using the short term emission spreadsheets on the WRAP Web site is consistent with how projected 2018 rate of lbs/MMBtu multiplied with the document the future year projections emissions were expressed for the WRAP heat input and hours of operation. In the used by the WRAP in their modeling. future case photochemical modeling for photochemical modeling. Except for Response: As discussed in our most sources, the actual base emissions SJGS, the WRAP projections in the proposal and elsewhere in this notice, from 2002 were projected to the future photochemical modeling were the analysis conducted by the WRAP using differing techniques to project the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52425

amount of growth and yield an estimate their comment for both types of limits the SJGS units to 0.15 lb of SO2/ of the future emissions, taking into modeling. At issue is the emission rate MMBtu. account the source type, any applicable that needs to be calculated from the Comment: The SJCC found the regulations and limitations, and data SJGS in order to determine visibility wording of EPA’s conclusion comparing available at the time. As discussed in impacts from the facility. For the New Mexico’s current emissions and another response to comment, the CALPUFF modeling, the July 2005 projected 2018 emissions to be WRAP modeling was conducted in a BART rules recommend using the actual confusing. If all sources in New Mexico, collaborative effort, and the 24-hour maximum emission rate over other than SJGS are currently achieving participating states agreed with these the last several years as the basis for the projected 2018 emissions, as EPA methodologies for generating the future baseline emissions, and when a source asserts, then that means the only year emission inventories. To apply the is controlled in the future the emission emissions reductions that will occur same exact procedures in calculating rate that would represent a maximum during the first RH planning period future emissions that were applied to 24-hour potential emission rate after from all emission sources in New the SJGS to all other sources in New install of controls is used for the future Mexico will be from SJGS, which SJCC Mexico would be inconsistent with the control scenario. Therefore, the values asserts is incorrect. To support this methodology that the WRAP used. We used in the CALPUFF modeling interpretation, the SJCC turned to the used the same methodology to calculate pursuant to EPA regulation and New Mexico emissions inventories used emissions for EGU’s that were installing guidance are a short-term (24-hour) in the WRAP modeling and noted that controls as the WRAP did for other emission rate to reflect visibility the WRAP modeling projects a EGUs installing controls. We used the impairment impacts. For the baseline, reduction in NOX emissions of about short-term 0.33 lb/MMBtu emission rate we took the existing enforceable permit 10,500 tpy from the SJGS by 2018. The as it directly relates to the averaging level, which is a 30-day average and SJCC notes that in comparison, the period for evaluating the visibility converted it to a 24-hour maximum State’s (then) proposed RH SIP impairment, which is daily. For EGUs, emission rate to use in CALPUFF to estimated that statewide NOX emissions the WRAP utilized a forecasting determine the visibility impacts from will decrease by 64,814 tpy by 2018. technique to yield 2018 emission the SJGS. PNM and NMED’s CALPUFF Based upon these numbers and estimates by applying a growth factor to modeling, conducted to estimate daily comparing them, the SJCC concludes the 2002 firing rate up to a capacity visibility impairment at Class I areas for that the statement that all sources in 72 threshold of 0.85. For NOX and SOx the baseline conditions, utilized an New Mexico, except SJGS, are achieving emissions from EGUs, the WRAP also emission factor rate of 0.33 lb/MMBtu as the emission levels assumed by the used data from 2004 to be representative the level that they could show WRAP modeling is incorrect. Rather, the of emission rates for 2018. However, for compliance on a short-term basis.73 We SJCC asserts, information shows that EGU sources where the installation of utilized the same emission rate in our other New Mexico sources besides the controls was anticipated, such as the CALPUFF modeling of the base case SJGS could be ‘‘interfering’’ with other SJGS, they utilized the short-term visibility impacts. states’ measures to protect visibility. emission factor that would result from In the photochemical modeling, the The SJCC concludes that although EPA’s the addition of controls (lb of pollutant emission rate used in the baseline interpretation of ‘‘interference’’ may be per MMBtu) and then multiplied by the reasonable on its face, the application of inventory was based on a NOX emission heat input to yield an annual tpy value rate of 0.27 or 0.28 (depending on the its explanation of its meaning indicates that was reported in the WRAP’s boiler Unit) and a 0.33 lb/MMBtu based otherwise. EPA’s explanation provides emission spreadsheets. While the rate as the maximum 24-hour emission no credible justification for singling out commenter is correct that the WRAP’s rate in the CALPUFF modeling. We also the SJGS as the only New Mexico source spreadsheets for photochemical note that these baseline emission rates of emissions that is interfering with modeling report data is in tpy, the were used by the state in consultation. other states’ visibility-protection WRAP calculation method uses the In summary on this issue, EPA believes measures. Response: The statement that other same basis for calculation that we used the commenter did not fully understand sources were achieving the necessary in our analysis, a lb of pollutant per how emission rates were modeled for reductions may have been unclear. In MMBtu. We did our emission the two modeling platforms in developing its emissions inventory, calculations for the SJGS using the same comparison to how the WRAP WRAP states estimated the emissions methodologies as the WRAP for other calculated future year emission rates for EGUs installing controls and, therefore, growth and all reductions that were EGUs, and we believe we have followed expected to occur from point, area, and disagree with the commenter’s our regulations and guidance in allegation that the SJGS were calculated other sources, from all regulatory accurately assessing the impacts with requirements. For New Mexico point unfairly. appropriate emission rates. We disagree with the characterization sources other than the SJGS, the current As part of our action for that we adjusted the SJGS current federally enforceable emission limits for 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, we are also emissions in the WRAP. From the these sources are consistent with those setting a SO limit in our action to be comment it is unclear if the 2 relied upon in the WRAP modeling. For protective of the 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit commenter’s concerns were just about the SJGS, the WRAP states considered for SJGS units that was included in the emission rate/calculations for the the impact of the RH BART WRAP photochemical modeling and photochemical modeling or the requirements. As discussed in our relied upon by WRAP states. SJGS has CALPUFF modeling. Because the proposal and elsewhere in this notice, installed control equipment that is comment is unclear, we have addressed we evaluated the planned emission achieving below this level currently, but reductions from point sources in New does not have an enforceable limit that 72 Document that was included in our proposal Mexico assumed in the WRAP modeling docket, ‘‘Developing the WRAP Point and Area and concluded that the SJGS was the 73 Source Emissions Projections for the 2018 NMED Proposed Regional Haze SIP, available only source in New Mexico that was Reasonable Progress Milestone for Regional Haze at AppxA_NM_SJGS_NOxBARTDetermination Planning’’, Paula G. Fields, Martinus E. Wolf, Tom _06212010.pdf and modeling files provided by expected to get reductions beyond the Moore, Lee Gribovicz. NMED to EPA for Review June/July 2009. current, i.e., baseline levels, because

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52426 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

that source was determined to be subject though the use of the current limit modeled predicted improvements in to BART. The 10,500 tpy NOX reduction would actually result in higher expected visibility due to the NOX BART mentioned by the commenter refers to visibility improvements. proposed controls are kept separate the reduction in NOX emissions at the Response: We conducted CALPUFF from any potential changes in visibility SJGS anticipated by the WRAP and visibility modeling to analyze the due to changes in SO2 emissions. This included in the future case impacts on visibility impairment from means the final CALPUFF analysis photochemical modeling. the NOX BART proposed controls. Due reflects only the benefits due to the For other sources, such as the ones to the nonlinear nature and complexity additional NOX reductions beyond the the SJCC points to as accounting for the of atmospheric chemistry and chemical baseline. This also reflects the SJGS’s remainder of their 64,814 total transformation among pollutants, all flexibility to increase its SO2 emissions reduction of NOX emissions in New relevant pollutants should be modeled up to the SO2 FIP limit of 0.15 lb/ Mexico, the WRAP states considered together to predict the total visibility MMBtu. It provides a more other rules on the books, projected impact at each Class I area receptor.74 In representative estimate of anticipated reductions from other federal rules order to estimate the benefits from the visibility improvements from (including those addressing mobile NOX BART proposed controls, we installation of NOX controls. sources), national consent decrees, and included the SO2 emissions as relied Comment: A commenter disagrees mobile source fleet turnover, among upon in the WRAP modeling in our with the general modeling approach and other things. These projections were CALPUFF modeling. The SO2 emission assumptions relied upon in EPA’s reviewed and agreed to by the WRAP limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu that we input modeling analysis. The commenter states as a part of their joint into the NOX BART visibility modeling contends that we performed numerous development of a complete WRAP is based upon what was relied upon in different visibility models and chose the emission inventory in support of their the WRAP modeling. Our FIP makes one with the highest visibility RH SIPs, and were relied upon by the improvements, even though the chosen this WRAP-relied upon SO2 limit of 0.15 WRAP states as a part of the reasonable lb/MMBtu federally enforceable. PNM’s model results are the least consistent progress goals. The commenter is requested baseline emission rate of 0.18 and the least realistic of the modeling correct that other sources in New runs prepared. The commenter claims lb/MMBtu of SO2 is not what was relied Mexico are projected to reduce their upon in the WRAP modeling. that EPA’s chosen value suggests that emissions as well. Those projections are Per EPA’s BART Guidelines, visibility improvements associated with based on the states’ best estimate of the maximum actual emissions should be installing SCRs at SJGS will be three growth of emissions from some sources utilized in the visibility modeling of the times higher than the model that would and the future impact of all combined base case, and all installed control assume more realistic, site-specific regulatory programs. We conclude, for technology should be considered. background ammonia concentrations the purpose of satisfying section Future case modeling should include and the Method 6 post-processing that 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), those projections were post control maximum emission rates.75 has been relied upon by PNM, NMED, reasonable and adequately incorporated and WRAP and by EPA itself with We note that the SJGS currently has SO2 into the WRAP modeling. control technology installed and has regard to SO2 (by relying on the WRAP As to the comment on how we current actual SO emissions below our modeling). The commenter argues that defined ‘‘interference’’ in the context of 2 proposed FIP limit. As a result, the EPA’s rejection of PNM’s modeling is CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), please refer to facility will not have to install unjustified and unnecessarily inflates our response to comments to legal the expected visibility improvements additional controls to meet our SO FIP issues (Section O.1 of this notice), 2 associated with SCRs. The commenter limit. As we are setting the 0.15 lb/ where we have a full response as to how states that EPA did not raise any of its MMBtu SO emission limit in the FIP we view the term ‘‘interfere’’ in the 2 concerns to PNM or NMED until the for SJGS, we modeled an emission rate context of the interstate transport issuance of the proposed FIP despite of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for SO for both the requirements of the CAA. In that 2 discussions with NMED over several baseline (current) and control (future) response we state that by promulgating years regarding proper modeling cases in estimating the anticipated a FIP to impose NOX and SO2 emission techniques. limits necessary at the SJGS to prevent visibility improvement due to Response: This comment is incorrect. such interference, as well as to meet the installation of the NOX BART proposed In January 2010, NMED proposed as controls. By holding the SO2 emissions requirement for BART for NOX for this NOX BART, the installation of SCR on same source, EPA is addressing the constant in the revised baseline the four units at SJGS and relied upon requirements of the CAA. In reaching (current) and future (control) cases, the modeling much of which was this conclusion, we considered the term completed in the 2006–2007 timeframe. 74 Memo from Joseph Paisie (Geographic ‘‘interfere’’ based upon the facts, Strategies Group, OAQPS) to Kay Prince (Branch SCR is generally considered the most information, and data available to EPA Chief EPA Region 4) on Regional Haze Regulations stringent control technology available at this time. and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit for NOX. The Guidelines for BART Comment: PNM commented that our Technology (BART) Determinations, July 19, 2006 Determinations under the Regional Haze 75 Page 39129 of BART Rule, ‘‘We believe the choice of an SO2 baseline and future Rule’s modeling guidelines in 40 CFR maximum 24-hour modeled impact can be an emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu was appropriate measure in determining the degree of part 51 App. Y, IV. D. 5 indicate that incorrect, and that an SO2 emission rate visibility improvement expected from BART selection of the most stringent controls of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu is more appropriate. reductions (or for BART applicability)’’, Pages available may allow a source or the state PNM alleges that this is based on the 39107–3918 of BART Rule For assessing the fifth agency to skip conducting visibility factor, the degree of improvement in visibility from current, federally enforceable emission various BART control options, the States may run impairment modeling. Therefore, limit. PNM asserts that our justification CALPUFF or another appropriate dispersion model because NMED selected SCR, the most for using the lower SO2 rate is that the to predict visibility impacts. Scenarios would be stringent control generally available, lower rate is expected in the future. The run for the pre-controlled and post-controlled consistent with our RHR requirements emission rates for each of the BART control options commenter argues that utilizing the under review. The maximum 24-hour emission (Step 1, Number 9 in the Guidelines), current SO2 limit is the more rates would be modeled for a period of three or five we did not perform a close review of the appropriate modeling method even years of meteorological data. modeling in the State’s proposal during

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52427

the State’s public process. discussed in the Complete Response to prior to the installation of controls Unfortunately, NMED decided not to Comments for NM Regional Haze/ under the 2005 consent decree. Low- finalize their proposal and then Visibility Transport FIP document. NOX burners do not satisfy the withdrew it from further state Results for all modeling scenarios are requirements for NOX BART for the rulemaking in May 2010. provided in the Appendix 3 to the TSD, SJGS; they are not supported by the When we developed the proposed FIP entitled ‘‘EPA’s CALPUFF Visibility NOX BART five-factor analysis. for NOX BART, we conducted our own Modeling Results.’’ These results Comment: We received comments visibility impact analysis (the degree of demonstrate the sensitivity of the model suggesting that modeling should be visibility improvement reasonably to underestimation of background performed using an emission rate of anticipated due to NOX BART at SJGS). ammonia and the sensitivity to the use 0.07lbs NOX/MMBtu, for operation of In conducting modeling for our of the original IMPROVE equation. SCR, rather than the 0.05 lbs/MMBtu proposed NOX BART FIP, we utilized Utilizing the different methods and emission rate. current practices and model versions different ammonia levels does result in Response: Our modeling of the that were acceptable to us at the time different predicted impact levels, but visibility impacts and benefits of the they were conducted in the latter half of the overall change in visibility installation of SCR as being NOX BART 2010. In order to minimize technical impairment, i.e., the net visibility are based on the determination of the concerns with the CALPUFF modeling improvement, due to the proposed NOX emission limit technically feasible and system version, modeling options BART FIP emission limit is a significant achievable at the SJGS. This selected in CALMET, calculation of value in all cases. In other words, while determination is discussed in response emissions (including sulfuric acid mist), the ammonia levels affect visibility to additional comments received on the and background ammonia levels improvement, throughout the range of emission limit achievable by SCR at employed by PNM, we remodeled ammonia background being modeled, SJGS. visibility impacts using the CALPUFF the NOX BART controls adopted here Comment: We received comments version that we have determined to be result in significant and important that claim that the installation of SCR at appropriate for regulatory purposes. visibility improvement. For example, the SJGS would result in imperceptible Please see our Complete Response to our sensitivity modeling predicted visibility improvements. Comments for NM Regional Haze/ significant visibility improvement at Response: We performed visibility Visibility Transport FIP document for Mesa Verde due to the proposed NO X modeling as part of the NO BART more details. We remodeled the BART emission limit, ranging from 38 to X determination analysis. A change of 1 visibility impacts of SJGS to address 56% improvement, depending on the deciview is generally regarded as a these issues with PNM and NMED’s background ammonia and post- perceptible change in visibility (70 FR modeling, utilizing an acceptable processing method selected. 39118; July 6, 2005). Our modeling version of CALPUFF. In doing so, we Comment: We received comments maintain consistency with the most that alleged that our CALPUFF indicates that significant improvements current modeling guidance EPA and the modeling analysis failed to fully and in visibility are anticipated from the FLM representatives have provided to appropriately account for the visibility installation of SCR to satisfy NOX BART the states. improvement already achieved by requirements. As discussed in the TSD, our visibility modeling shows that We performed numerous modeling recent SO2 and NOX emission runs in order to evaluate the sensitivity reductions from SJGS. PNM contracted improvement due to installation of SCR of model results to the chosen model with B&V to perform a BART analysis is significant and at a level that is inputs and post processing methods to for the SJGS. The commenters claim that certainly perceptible, including a 3.11 generally inform the process. The this analysis used EPA’s BART dv improvement at Canyonlands and justification for selecting the revised guidelines and showed that the low 2.88 dv at Mesa Verde and an IMPROVE equation (‘‘Method 8’’) over NOX burners installed on all four units improvement of 1 deciview or greater at the original IMPROVE equation at SJGS during the environmental 7 other Class I areas. Installation of SCR (‘‘Method 6’’) is discussed in a separate upgrade project between 2007 and 2009 will result in significant and perceptible response to comment. Background meet the requirements for NOX BART. visibility improvements at a number of ammonia concentrations are also Response: Our technical modeling Class I areas. discussed further in a separate response analysis accounted for the visibility Furthermore, in a situation where the to comments. We disagree with the improvements achieved by existing installation of BART may not result in commenter’s assertion we simply controls at the SJGS by incorporating a perceptible improvement in visibility, picked the modeling results that best the SO2 and NOX enforceable permit the visibility benefit may still be supported our position, without regard limits established under the March 10, significant. ‘‘Failing to consider less- to consistency and/or realism. Every 2005 consent decree between PNM and than-perceptible contributions to parameter and model input was the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, visibility impairment would ignore the evaluated and selected separately, based and NMED (2005 Consent Decree) into CAA’s intent to have BART on accepted methodology of EPA and the baseline emissions modeling requirements apply to sources that the FLM representatives, guidance and scenario. Our analysis of the visibility contribute to, as well as cause, such available data. During selection of improvements due to the installation of impairment’’ (70 FR 128; RH model versions and inputs, EPA R6 staff NOX controls as part of our proposal Regulations and Guidelines for Best conferred with other EPA modeling reflected the visibility improvement due Available Retrofit Technology (BART) experts and FLM representatives on to installation of additional NOX Determinations, July 6, 2005). these modeling issues to ensure that our controls beyond those installed as Installation of SCR will result in modeling would be done in accordance required by the 2005 Consent Decree significant and perceptible visibility with current day CALPUFF modeling (completed in 2009). Furthermore, we improvements at a number of Class I practices for visibility impairment note that neither NMED nor EPA areas. However, a perceptible visibility analyses. A discussion of model reviewed or approved a NOX BART improvement is not a requirement of the selection and inputs was presented in analysis including a CALPUFF BART determination as a visibility our proposal and in the TSD and further modeling analysis performed by B&V improvement that is not perceptible

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52428 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

may still be determined to be cannot be evaluated until EPA identifies significant. We disagree. We provided in significant. (1) the magnitudes of those the proposal and TSD a full discussion Comment: A commenter asserted that discrepancies and (2) the resultant of how the NOX emissions in the WRAP EPA’s proposed reductions of NOX modeled difference in visibility modeling were not being achieved by emissions from the SJGS, to satisfy the impairment due to those discrepancies. SJGS, and how NOX emissions relied requirements of section The commenter alleges that at no time upon in the WRAP modeling for the 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(II) of the CAA, are have we specified the amount of SJGS, and agreed upon during excessive and not supported by the emissions reductions that may be consultation, are not federally record. The commenter claimed that necessary to satisfy New Mexico’s enforceable. Therefore, we are EPA failed to provide quantitative obligation under section establishing federally enforceable NOX details on how those emissions 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. The emission limits that will eliminate reductions were calculated. commenter estimated the amount of interstate interference and at the same Furthermore, the emission reductions NOX reductions in the WRAP modeling time address the RH BART requirement achievable by EPA’s proposed NOX for the SJGS as 10,590 tpy and then for NOX for SJGS. The commenter then BART appear to be substantially more approximated the amount of NOX asserts that a side by side comparison than the amount of reductions required emission reductions from SJGS under should have been provided in tons/year. for New Mexico to comply with its EPA’s scheme to prevent New Mexico’s We disagree that is necessary to quantify visibility-related obligation under ‘‘interference’’ as approximately 2,200 this comparison in tons/years. The section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The tpy of NOX after considering the consent modeling for electric generating units commenter alleges that EPA did not decree reductions of 8,411 tpy since (EGUs) may have been reported out as provide information on the extent that 2002. They then commented that if tons/year (tpy) in the WRAP emission SJGS’s emissions must be adjusted and SJGS’s current (Plan02d) 2002 NOX modeling summary tables, but the did not provide a straightforward, side- emissions are ‘‘adjusted’’ in accordance WRAP actual modeling itself used a by-side comparison of SJGS’s ‘‘current’’ with EPA’s approach, those required short-term emission rate (i.e., lb/ emissions with and without those emission reductions to reach SJGS’s MMBtu). See our other response to emissions being adjusted by the Agency; projected level used in the WRAP comment that addresses tpy versus lb/ thus, the actual amounts of the modeling would increase by an MMBtu modeled emissions in more emissions ‘‘discrepancies’’ that EPA unknown quantity, but they then detail. stresses in its preamble are unidentified. assumed that the discrepancy is 100% In the case of SJGS, the WRAP’s The commenter challenges EPA’s greater than 2,200 tpy, yielding an photochemical modeling that was statement that those discrepancies are additional 4,400 tpy NOX reduction performed to yield daily (24-hour) ‘‘significant’’ based on ‘‘changes in needed by 2018 to prevent interference. visibility impairment impacts included visibility projections’’ and states that Commenter indicated that EPA’s future emission estimates based on EPA failed to provide modeling results proposal under § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to emission rates of 0.27 and 0.28 lb of quantifying the visibility impact retrofit SJGS’s generating units with NOX/MMBtu and 0.15 lb of SO2/ associated with those emission SCR could achieve roughly 4 times the MMBtu. After NMED’s consultation ‘‘discrepancies.’’ The commenter states amount of NOX emission reductions with other states, PNM indicated to the our ‘‘discrepancies’’ are not differences actually required and EPA’s proposed State that SJGS could not meet the two between SJGS’s projected emissions NOX emission reductions from the SJGS future WRAP emission rates for NOX used in the WRAP modeling and an are excessive. without installing additional NOX EPA-adjusted level of ‘‘current’’ Response: We disagree with the controls. PNM claims that the actual emissions. Rather, those emissions assertion that EPA must separate the emission rate was approximately 0.30 lb ‘‘discrepancies’’ are the differences required NOX emission reductions of NOX/MMBtu on a longer-term basis between SJGS’s current levels of NOX required by SJGS to meet section as reflected in the permit and 0.33 lb of and SO2 emissions used in the WRAP 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements from the NOX/MMBtu on a short-term basis as modeling and their EPA-adjusted NOX emission reductions required to reflected in PNM’s visibility impact counterparts, i.e., current levels of those meet the NOX BART determination for modeling for SJGS. PNM and NMED’s emissions adjusted to values that EPA SJGS. EPA also disagrees that we are CALPUFF modeling, conducted to believes should have been used in the required to conduct a modeling analysis estimate daily visibility impairment at modeling. The commenter questioned to determine if the NOX reductions Class I areas, utilized an emission factor how, if New Mexico’s 2002 NOX necessary for SJGS to meet the rate of 0.33 lb/MMBtu for estimation of emissions were 312,193 tpy (Plan02d) 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirement daily impact as the level that they could and SJGS corresponding emissions were would result in significant visibility show compliance on a short-term 30,353 tpy of NOX, only the amount of improvement. As we discuss elsewhere basis.76 EPA’s adjustment could significantly in this notice, there is no necessity that We did not model the difference impact out-of-state visibility impairment we must evaluate these requirements between the current enforceable when the State’s total NOX emissions separately and no requirement that we emission limits and those emission will likely be at least 10–100 times perform a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility limits relied upon in the WRAP greater than the ‘‘adjustment’’ amount. analysis. See Legal response to modeling for SJGS. We find that New The commenter then indicated that it is comments, above, regarding our general Mexico sources, other than the SJGS, are impossible to independently evaluate authority and obligation to act on sufficiently controlled to eliminate the strength of our conclusion regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and RH SIP interference with the visibility programs the extent to which emissions from requirements. of other states because the federally SJGS must be ‘‘adjusted,’’ because the The commenter takes issue with the enforceable emission limits for these specific numbers, which purportedly fact that we did not specifically quantify sources are consistent with those relied support that Agency conclusion, have the difference in emissions between the upon in the WRAP modeling. The SO2 not been provided. The commenter then WRAP modeling and what is being and NOX emissions relied upon in the indicated that a judgment of whether achieved by SJGS, and explain why the EPA’s ‘‘discrepancies’’ are significant discrepancy was believed to be 76 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52429

WRAP modeling for the SJGS, however, emissions of many sources in the State, cumulative benefits from reducing are not federally enforceable. Therefore, such as area and mobile sources. We emissions. They state that cumulative we are establishing federally enforceable conduct modeling to quantify visibility benefits have been a factor in the BART emission limits for SO2 and NOX for the impairment impacts because sources determinations by Oregon and SJGS to eliminate interference with the that are close to a Class I area and have Wyoming, as well as EPA in its visibility programs of other states. There elevated stacks result in greater plume proposals for the Navajo Generating is no requirement to perform a impact on the Class I area, and will have Station and the Four Corners Power 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility analysis. a greater impact on visibility Plant. They also note that the We note that the 98% largest deciview impairment per ton of NOX, compared improvements in visibility impairment impact we modeled using 0.33 lb/ to a much greater tonnage of NOX due to reductions in NOX emissions in MMBtu NOX and 0.15 lb/MMBtu SO2 emissions from a variety of sources that other analyses have been largest at Class was 5.15dv at Mesa Verde Class I area. are 100s of kilometers away. Much of I areas other than the closest Class I We also modeled visibility impacts the New Mexico NOX emissions are area, therefore evaluation of all Class I using 0.33 lb/MMBtu NOX and 0.18 lb/ spread throughout the state and nearer areas within the modeling domain is MMBtu SO2 in our initial modeling to to the metropolitan areas of appropriate. compare model results with those Albuquerque and Santa Fe and over 200 Several commenters were opposed to presented by PNM and NMED. We note kms from Class I areas in other states, the use of a ‘‘cumulative deciviews’’ or that reducing SO2 emissions from 0.18 in comparison to the SJGS which is just ‘‘total’’ visibility improvement metric. to 0.15 lb/MMBtu resulted in a minimal 42 km from the Mesa Verde Class I area. These commenters claim that the change in visibility impacts at all Class Our modeling indicated that the SJGS ’’cumulative deciviews’’ metric is I areas (0.03 dv at Mesa Verde), had a very large impact in our baseline misleading and that the modeling demonstrating a limited sensitivity to emissions modeling (5.15 deciviews at impact improvements would take place changes in SO2 emissions compared to Mesa Verde) which highlights why we at different locations within a Class I the large changes in visibility due to conduct modeling instead of analyzing area, within different Class I areas, and decreasing NOX emissions at SJGS, as emission ratios, which is apparently probably on different dates so a shown in our modeling of the 0.05 lb of what the commenter erroneously ‘‘cumulative deciviews’’ result would NOX/MMBtu emission rate (SCR case). implies we should do. not be observed by one viewer. They The use of 0.15 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission The commenter did not provide continued that one viewer would not rate is discussed in a separate response specific details or cite any guidance as perceive visibility impacts in more than to comment. Considering that the 0.33 to how EPA erred in estimating one Class I area simultaneously, or even lb/MMBtu NOX value is approximately emissions for modeling. We disagree within relatively short periods of time, 20% greater than the 0.27/0.28 rate, the with the comments that we have in nearly every case. Furthermore, the significant visibility impacts, and the unfairly adjusted the emission visibility impacts to a region should not NOX sensitivity demonstrated by the calculations to overstate the benefit of depend on the number of Class I areas modeling, it is clear this difference in our proposal. We have conducted our present. The commenters state it is emission rates can have a significant calculations consistent with EPA improper to consider a ‘‘cumulative’’ impact on visibility. Even on a long- methods and guidance, and the WRAP deciview improvement over more than term basis, the difference between EGU modeling projections.77 As one Class I area. relying upon 0.30 lb/MMBtu compared documented in our TSD, we used the The commenters also suggest that the to the 0.27/0.28 lb/MMBtu would have most recent materials, including EPRI’s use of a ‘‘total dv’’ metric is inconsistent a significant impact. Although the spreadsheets, and current EPA guidance with BART guidelines (40 CFR part 51 atmospheric chemistry is not strictly to estimate emissions for our analyses Appendix Y, IV.D.5). The guidelines linear in this case, if modeled, the and disagree with the commenter’s state that it is appropriate to model combined difference in NOX and SOX vague comment that we unfairly impacts at the nearest Class I area as emission rates would likely result in an adjusted the emissions to what we well as other nearby Class I areas to impact between several tenths of a thought they should be. determine where the impacts are deciview and 1 deciview. Clearly, the Comment: We received comments greatest. Modeling at other Class I areas difference between what was assumed from the NPS and USFS supporting the may be unwarranted if the highest by the WRAP and what is actually being reporting of the cumulative visibility modeled effects are observed at the achieved by the SJGS should not be impact of SJGS and the cumulative nearest Class I area. The commenters ignored. Since we determined a much benefits of SCR. NPS and USFS believe claim the analysis should be focused on lower emission rate for BART, we did it is appropriate to consider both the the visibility impacts at the most not need to directly evaluate the degree of visibility improvement in a impacted area, not all areas. The impacts of just achieving the emission given Class I area as well as the commenters add that states have already rate levels included in the WRAP cumulative effects of improving successfully dealt with this practice. To modeling. visibility across all of the Class I areas illustrate, they point to the Colorado Air The commenter claims that the SJGS affected. The BART guidelines do not Quality Control Commission declining total emissions in 2002 were consider the geographic extent of to take a ‘‘cumulative’’ approach to approximately 10% of the statewide visibility impairment. NPS and USFS deciviews, even though commenters New Mexico NOX emission total. The believe the most practical approach to had argued the concept should commenter implies that the reductions this problem is to consider the influence decision making about BART. found to be needed at SJGS are cumulative impacts of a source on all Response: We agree with the NPS and exceedingly small in comparison to the Class I areas affected, as well as the the USDA Forest Service on the utility total State emissions and therefore of a cumulative visibility metric in should not be singled out for control. 77 Document that was included in our proposal addition to the other visibility metrics The commenter fails to consider the docket, ‘‘Developing the WRAP Point and Area we utilized and we do not agree that our Source Emissions Projections for the 2018 proximity of SJGS to Class I areas and Reasonable Progress Milestone for Regional Haze approach is inconsistent with BART the fact that its emissions are Planning’’, Paula G. Fields, Martinus E. Wolf, Tom guidelines. Our visibility modeling concentrated relative to the more diffuse Moore, Lee Gribovicz. shows that a number of Class I areas are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52430 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

individually and significantly impacted areas within 300km of the SJGS and information is useful in quantifying the by emissions from the SJGS. The above 1 deciview at 14 of the 16 Class overall benefit of BART controls. number of days per year significantly I areas.79 These significant visibility Comment: A commenter disagreed impacted by the facility’s NOX impacts support the conclusion that with our use of the revised IMPROVE emissions is expected to decrease further analyses were warranted. In this equation (Method 8) post-processing drastically at each Class I area (Table 6– specific case, our analysis indicated the methodology for the CALPUFF model 8 of the TSD) as the result of installation largest baseline impact was at the results to calculate visibility impairment of NOX BART emission controls at the closest Class I area (Mesa Verde) but for the SJGS NOX BART determination SJGS. Clearly, the visibility benefits also indicated very large impacts at from predicted pollutant concentrations. from NOX BART emission reductions other Class I areas. In fact, we found that To be consistent with the WRAP will be spread among all affected Class the largest overall decrease in visibility modeling, the commenter claims we I areas, not only the most affected area, impact resulting from the proposed NOX instead should have used the original and should be considered in evaluation emission reductions occurred at a much IMPROVE equation (Method 6). The of benefits from proposed reductions. more distant Class I area (Canyonlands). commenter further alleges that our use The portion of the BART Guidelines Therefore, had we stopped our analysis of Method 8 resulted in much higher (40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, IV.D.5) that the after modeling the visibility visibility impacts and improvements commenter referenced states: ‘‘If the improvement at Mesa Verde, we would than would have been predicted using highest modeled effects are observed at not have discovered that the largest Method 6. The commenter also claims the nearest Class I area, you may choose visibility improvement is predicted to that our NOX BART modeling analysis not to analyze the other Class I areas any occur elsewhere. is internally inconsistent because we further as additional analyses might be In fully considering the visibility rely on Method 6 for SO2 (using the unwarranted.’’ 78 This section of the benefits anticipated from the use of an WRAP modeling) and on Method 8 BART Guidelines addresses how to available control technology as one of modeling for NOX. Furthermore, the determine visibility impacts as part of the factors in selection of NOX BART, it commenters assert that the use of the BART determination. Several is appropriate to account for visibility Method 8 is generally justified by EPA paragraphs later in the BART Guidelines benefits across all affected Class I areas by referring to the ‘‘regulatory version,’’ it states: ‘‘You have flexibility to assess and the BART guidelines provide the however, Method 8 processing is not visibility improvements due to BART flexibility to do so. One approach as supported by the ‘‘regulatory version’’ controls by one or more methods. You noted above is to qualitatively consider, EPA used in its analysis. may consider the frequency, magnitude, for example, the frequency, magnitude, Response: Method 6 and Method 8 and duration components of and duration of impairment at each and refer to two different versions of impairment,’’ emphasizing the all affected Class I areas. Where a source algorithms used to estimate visibility flexibility in method and metrics that such as the SJGS significantly impacts impairment from pollutant exists in assessing the net visibility so many Class I areas on so many days, concentrations. Method 8 is a more improvement. the cumulative ‘total dv’ metric is one recently available, more refined version As discussed in a separate response to way to take magnitude of the impacts of of the original equation and is now comment, for any CALPUFF visibility the source into account. considered by us and FLM modeling in a SIP, a protocol addressing Therefore, under the BART representatives to be the better approach procedures and analyses should be Guidelines, and based upon these facts, to estimating visibility impairment. determined with the appropriate we decided additional analyses were Compared to the original IMPROVE reviewing authority and affected FLMs. not only warranted but necessary. The equation, this revised IMPROVE As identified in the BART Guidelines, BART Guidelines only indicate that equation has less bias, accounts for an important element of the modeling additional analyses may be unwarranted more pollutants, incorporates more protocol is the choice of receptors used at other Class I areas, and in no way recent data, and is based on in the model, and the decision of when exclude such analyses, as the considerations of relevance for the additional analyses including modeling commenter suggests. We concluded that calculations needed for assessing the effects at Class I areas beyond the a quantitative analysis of visibility progress under the RHR.80 We are aware nearest area are warranted and impacts and benefits at only the Mesa that Method 8 tends to show more necessary. As indicated in the TSD and Verde area would not be sufficient to improvement in visibility than Method RTC for this notice, we conferred with fully assess the impacts of controlling 6 when reductions in very small EPA OAQPS and FLM representatives NOX emissions from the SJGS. particles are achieved, such as those on the details of conducting the Again, nothing in the RHR suggests that are formed by emissions of NOX. CALPUFF modeling in this action, and that a state (or EPA in issuing a FIP) We believe that this, however, more concluded, like PNM and NMED should ignore the full extent of the accurately reflects real visibility previously concluded in their 2009 visibility impacts and improvements conditions. modeling, that because of the size of the from BART controls at multiple Class I We are also aware that at the time the source and the number of Class I area areas. Given that the national goal of the States were working together in the potentially affected, we should evaluate program is to improve visibility at all WRAP to develop their RH SIPs, modeling receptors at all Class I areas Class I areas, it would be short-sighted Method 6 was widely employed to within 300 km of the source. We also to limit the evaluation of the visibility develop RPGs and for initial BART received comments from FLM benefits of a control to only the most representatives supporting the way we impacted Class I area. As noted 80 Revised IMPROVE algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data, conducted our modeling including our previously, NMED and PNM’s BART IMPROVE, January 2006 (http:// evaluation of multiple Class I areas. analyses also presented visibility impact vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/ Our baseline modeling indicated that and improvement projections at all 16 GrayLit/gray_literature.htm) ; Hand, J.L., Douglas, visibility impacts from the SGJS were S.G., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Class I areas. We believe such Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients— above 0.5 deciviews at all 16 Class I Final Report (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 79 70 FR 39118. Impacts of 1 deciview or greater improve/Publications/GrayLit/ 78 70 FR 39170. are considered to cause a visibility impairment. 016_IMPROVEEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52431

analyses. By the time Method 8 was algorithm. We also evaluated modeling includes updated chemistry that is more widely available, some States were far results using Method 6 to quantify the robust and performs better and technical enough along in their SIP development sensitivity of our results to the choice in enhancements to improve the model’s that a switch to the newer method visibility impairment algorithm. We performance and accuracy. would have been disruptive. Because of note that using either Method 8 or Additionally, commenters included this, we did not object to the use of Method 6, substantial visibility benefits information on a February 16, 2011 Method 6 in the WRAP photochemical were projected for the installation of meeting held with the EPA in Research modeling or subject-to-BART screening SCR and support the conclusion that Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina modeling. In the case of New Mexico, SCR is the appropriate BART control. along with representatives of the Method 6 was used in WRAP modeling We disagree with the comment western states utility organization to determine which sources are subject concerning Method 8 and the WEST Associates, the American to BART. Using Method 6, New Mexico ‘‘regulatory version’’ of the model. Petroleum Institute (API), and TRC (the determined that the SJGS was subject to CALPOST is the post-processing tool developer of CALPUFF). The FLMs BART because of its significant impact used to apply an algorithm to estimate participated in this meeting by on Class I areas. We reached the same visibility impairment from pollutant teleconference. It was agreed at the conclusion using either Method 6 or concentrations from CALPUFF. We meeting that the FLMs will take the lead Method 8 in our modeling. New Mexico determined CALPOST version 6.221, on a review and testing of the CALPUFF and the other WRAP States also used which includes the option to apply model code changes including the new Method 6 to develop reasonable either the Method 6 or the Method 8 chemistry modules, and Model Change progress goals for the Class I areas in the algorithm, was the appropriate Bulletins (MCBs) and coordinate with region. CALPOST version for our analysis. EPA. For the purposes of ensuring that New Since we determined Method 8 was the Response: The commenter indicated Mexico’s emissions do not interfere better method for estimating that a revised version of the model is with other States’ plans for visibility impairment, we chose to use the version available and submitted modeling improvement, the choice of IMPROVE of CALPOST that allowed the analyses using CALPUFF model Method is not relevant. The commenter calculation using either Method 6 or Versions 6.112 and 6.4. Comments seems to imply that because the WRAP Method 8. We note that this CALPOST received justifying the use of these modeling largely used Method 6, we version was approved and supported by versions of CALPUFF alleged that they should use Method 6 for all our the FLMs to allow for application of the were more scientifically robust and analyses, including our source specific revised IMPROVE equation (‘‘Method included updated chemistry and 82 technical enhancements to improve the analyses for NOX BART. However, 8’’). As discussed in more detail in a regardless of which IMPROVE equation separate response to comment in this model’s performance and accuracy. We is used, New Mexico did not provide Section N and our Complete Response disagree that the newer versions of federally enforceable limitations on to Comments for NM Regional Haze/ CALPUFF should be used in this action to determine potential visibility SJGS’ SO2 and NOX emissions to Visibility Transport FIP document, the achieve the reductions expected by ultimate decision on the acceptable impacts. The newer version(s) of other States. Without these reductions, model version, formulation, and set-up CALPUFF have not received the level of other States will not achieve the of CALPUFF and CALPOST for review required for use in regulatory progress at their Class I areas which visibility modeling is our responsibility actions subject to EPA approval and they expected under the collaborative in a FIP situation. consideration in a BART decision WRAP process. Comment: We received a number of making process. Based on our review of As discussed previously, we have comments concerning the version of the the available evidence we do not concluded that it is appropriate to CALPUFF modeling system EPA has consider the models to have been shown to be sufficiently documented, address the requirements for NOX BART used. We utilized CALPUFF Version 5.8 for SJGS at the same time we address suite for visibility modeling. The technically valid, and reliable for use in New Mexico’s obligations under the commenter indicated revised CALPUFF a BART decision making process. In visibility prong of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). As model Versions 6.112 and 6.4 are addition, the available evidence would part of the BART analysis, we available and submitted modeling not support approval of these models for performed CALPUFF modeling to assess analyses using these versions of current regulatory use. There are known technical problems with CALPUFF the impacts of the NOX BART proposed CALPUFF with the suggestion that their controls on the single source at issue on modeling should be used instead of 6.112 and furthermore, the development visibility impairment. Because Method ours. A number of commenters stated of new model versions requires 8 is the preferred method for analyses that Version 5.8 is outdated and technical and policy evaluations to being conducted at this time,81 we overestimates visibility impacts. The ensure the models meet regulatory estimated the CALPUFF visibility commenters argue that the latest requirements. impacts using this peer reviewed version, CALPUFF Version 6.4, which The commenter’s modeling using includes updated chemistry and different model versions with as yet 81 U.S. EPA. Additional Regional Haze Questions. technical enhancements to improve the unapproved mechanisms and the non- U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. August 3, model’s performance and accuracy, guideline techniques indicated different 2006, available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ results than past modeling submitted by ______should be used to evaluate visibility iwg/documents/Q and A for Regional Haze 8-03- impacts. They alleged that this version PNM and the results of our modeling of 06.pdf#search=%22%22New%20IMPROVE% 83 20equation%22%22; WRAP presentation, ‘‘Update SJGS. The visibility impacts of their on IMPROVE Light Extinction Equation and Natural 82 U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and modeling results are much lower Conditions Estimates’’ Tom Moore, May 23, 2006; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federal land compared to results of past PNM, NMED U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. managers’ air quality related values work group and EPA modeling. These discrepancies Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federal land (FLAG): phase I report—revised (2010). Natural managers’ air quality related values work group Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232. are large enough to lend further (FLAG): phase I report—revised (2010). Natural National Park Service, Denver, Colorado, available Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232. at http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/ 83 Comparison of model results presented by National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. FLAG_2010.pdf. commenter with values in our TSD Chapter 6.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52432 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

credence to the need for a full review of GAQM which includes provisions to the information provided is not the revised modeling systems before obtain approval through consultation sufficient and does not comport with considering the modeling results for any with the reviewing authority. Moreover, the requirements of Section 3.2, decision making.84 85 EPA was fully we also note that in EPA’s document including 3.2.2(b)(3) and (e), of GAQM. justified in following its modeling entitled Guidance on the Use of Models The model developer has relied upon approach, which was consistent with and Other Analyses for Demonstrating several articles (Escoffier-Czaja and current EPA and FLM guidelines, as Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Scire, 2007; and Scire, et al., 2003) well as similar to modeling recently Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze which describe the general reliability of performed by NMED and PNM. EPA (EPA–454/B–07–002), that Appendix W the CALPUFF modeling system and used the approved version of the model does not identify a particular modeling post-processing techniques for use in in accordance with the appropriate system as ‘preferred’ for modeling visibility assessments. Based on our procedures, as discussed further in conducted in support of state review of this information, we do not other response to comments and is implementation plans under 40 CFR believe it provides sufficient confident in using our results as one of 51.308(b). A model should meet several information for EPA to assess the the five factors in making a BART general criteria for it to be a candidate suitability of the newer versions of the determination. for consideration. These general criteria modeling system as would be done in In considering the comment that we are consistent with the requirements of reviewing models in accordance with should use the latest version of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR 51, GAQM Section 3.2.2(e) requirements. CALPUFF (6.4) or an earlier version Appendix W. Therefore, it is correct to First, it is important to understand 6.112, we considered the regulatory interpret that no model system is that each of the papers were presented status of CALPUFF for visibility considered ‘preferred’ under 40 CFR 51, as part of general proceedings at analyses and what analyses are needed Appendix W, Section 3.1.1 (b) for either conferences, and therefore do not reflect to utilize an updated CALPUFF secondary particulate matter or for the thoroughness of a formal peer modeling system. The requirements of visibility assessments. Under this review process that would be associated 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, general framework, we followed the with submission to mainline scientific Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality general recommendation in Appendix Y journals. Therefore, we do not consider Models (GAQM) and the BART to use CALPUFF as a screening these references suitable for establishing Guidelines which refers to GAQM as the technique since the modeling system the validity of the model or post- authority for using CALPUFF, provide has not been specifically approved for processing techniques or demonstrating the framework for determining the chemistry. The use of CALPUFF is that these models have undergone appropriate model platforms and subject to GAQM requirements in independent scientific peer review as versions and inputs to be used. Because section 3.0(b), 4, and 6.2.1(e) which necessary for reviewing models in of concern with CALPUFF’s treatment includes an approved protocol to use accordance with Section 3.2.2(e)(i) of of chemical transformations, which the current 5.8 version. GAQM. affect AQRVs, EPA has not approved the As noted previously, the summary of Second, the evaluation techniques chemistry of CALPUFF’s model as a results provided by the commenter utilized by the developer are not ‘preferred’ model. The use of the indicate much lower results compared appropriate for evaluation of the regulatory version is approved for to the current regulatory approved chemical mechanisms of the CALPUFF increment and NAAQS analysis of version of the modeling system. The system. Appendix A.3 of GAQM primary pollutants only. Currently significant difference in results is an describes CALPUFF as generally CALPUFF Version 5.8, is subject to the indicator that there are important considered suitable for treatment of requirements of GAQM 3.0(b) and as a changes in the science between these dispersion of non-reactive pollutants screening model, GAQM 4. CALPUFF new versions and the current EPA from a single source or small group of Versions 6.112 and 6.4 have not been version. We must have a full sources for distances beyond 50-km to approved by EPA for even this limited understanding of these changes before 200- to 300-km. CALPUFF usage, in the purpose. ‘approving’ their use. The information context of the Southwestern Wyoming Under the BART guidelines, provided indicates the new science Air Quality Task Force (SWWYTAF) CALPUFF should be used as screening includes chemistry for which this model modeling dataset presented in both tool and appropriate consultation with was never approved so these changes Escoffier-Czaja and Scire (2007) and the reviewing authority is required to would necessitate a notice and comment Scire et al. (2003), is treated as a full use CALPUFF in a BART determination rulemaking and not a simply update as photochemical modeling system such as as part of a SIP or FIP. The BART previously done for this model to the Comprehensive Air Quality Model Guideline cited and referred to EPA’s address bug-fixes and the like. We with Extensions (CAMx) or the believe that with such modifications to Community Multiscale Air Quality 84 70 FR 39123, 39124. ‘‘We understand the the modeling system, CALPUFF Model (CMAQ). However, the concerns of commenters that the chemistry modules (Version 6.4) used in this manner could evaluation techniques presented in the of the CALPUFF model are less advanced than no longer be considered a screening aforementioned references evaluate the some of the more recent atmospheric chemistry model as a near-field dispersion model, simulations. To date, no other modeling technique under Section 4 of GAQM. applications with updated chemistry have been The CALPUFF Version 6.112 would be presenting information on sulfate and approved by EPA to estimate single source considered an alternative model and nitrate performance in quantile-quantile pollutant concentrations from long range would be subject to the requirements of plots (Q–Q plots) only for the Bridger- transport.’’ and in discussion of using other models Teton IMPROVE monitoring site. This with more advanced chemistry it continues, ‘‘A Section 3.2 of GAQM. As covered in discussion of the use of alternative models is given more thorough detail below and in our technique is not satisfactory for in the Guideline on Air Quality in appendix W, RTC, these alternate versions of purposes of model performance section 3.2.’’ CALPUFF (6.112 and 6.4) are subject to evaluations for full science chemistry 85 EPA report, ‘‘Assessment of the VISTAS the provisions of GAQM. models. Recommended methods and Version of the CALPUFF Modeling System’’, EPA– 454/R–08–007, August 2008 available at (http:// Based on the technical information metrics for evaluation of photochemical www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/ that has been provided, these model models are discussed at length in EPA’s calpuff_vistas_assessment_report_final.pdf). versions could not be approved because Guidance on the Use of Models and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52433

Other Analyses for Demonstrating approved for regulatory actions currently evaluating several models to Attainment of Air Quality Goals for (CALPUFF version 5.8). If these versions address current modeling needs for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze (EPA– of CALPUFF can be shown to be reliable models that can be used for analyses of 454/B–07–002). Therefore, we do not and acceptable to EPA, it would likely secondary formation pollutants for consider the analysis techniques be appropriate to the use Highest Daily ozone, PM2.5 secondary, and regional presented by the model developer impact (1st High instead of the 8th haze/visibility impairment.89 At this sufficient to demonstrate that the model High) based on the presumption that the time, EPA and the FLM representatives is not biased, as would be done to updated chemistry of CALPUFF model are in the process of planning to move justify use of a model in accordance would result in less conservative results forward on reviewing all available with Section 3.2.2(e)(iv) of GAQM. than Version 5.8. In past agreements in models to determine their suitability for Finally, no modeling files were using the CAMx photochemical model, these analyses. We note that we have provided for review, no protocol or which has a robust chemistry module, reviewed the materials shared at the other complete documentation was the Region has recommended the use of meeting and discussed the planned provided outlining the methods and the 1st High value when sources were steps forward from the meeting, but that procedures of operating the alternative being screened out of a full BART CALPUFF Versions 6.4 and 6.112 have model in agreement with the analysis based on the CAMx results.87 still not been evaluated to determine appropriate reviewing authority (EPA The current version of CALPUFF their suitability for use in various Region 6) prior to submission of approved for regulatory action was last contexts. comments, contrary to requirements of updated by EPA on June 29, 2007. The Based on the applicable GAQM and Section 3.2.2(e)(v) of GAQM. CALPUFF modeling system approved at BART Guidelines regulations, the Therefore, on the basis of available that time included CALPUFF version combination GAQM (2005) citations information submitted to the public 5.8, level 070623, CALMET version 5.8 (6.2.1(e) and 3.0(b)), and the BART record, we could not approve the use of level 070623, and CALPOST version Guidelines outline that for any visibility the alternative model versions in 5.6394, level 070622. CALPUFF is still modeling performed with the CALPUFF accordance with Section 3.2.2(e) considered a screening model for model in a SIP, a protocol addressing requirements of GAQM. We believe our visibility assessments. Therefore, we procedures and analyses should be modeling accurately describes the followed the requirements of Appendix developed with the appropriate visibility impacts of the SJGS, the W for screening models in our reviewing authority and affected FLMs. benefits of BART controls, and was modeling.88 We conducted our Approval of an alternate model usually based on established and well- modeling with the version 5.8 suite with includes consultation with the modeling recognized methods. a few exceptions that were discussed group at EPA/OAQPS even though It would be problematic for us to among modeling experts from EPA ultimate authority in most cases is the allow the use of any unapproved model Region 6, EPA/OAQPS and FLM Regional Office. In the case of a SIP or variants with potentially significant representatives. Our modeling a FIP, the EPA Regional Office has the changes to chemistry treatment without procedures were discussed more fully in final approval decision on what additional information regarding the our TSD. constitutes appropriate/acceptable model’s formulation, performance, and We note that the CALPUFF Versions modeling. Development of an acceptable acceptability. In promulgating the BART 6.4 and 6.112 have not been reviewed protocol with a Regional Office for guidelines we made the decision in the by EPA for potential regulatory use. review and approval of an alternative final BART Guideline to recommend PNM’s contractor has indicated that a model (i.e. updated model version, etc.) that the model be used to estimate the meeting was held with EPA/OAQPS can be a very significant task and could 98th percentile visibility impairment representatives on Feb. 16, 2011 and take 6 months to a year or longer to rather than the highest daily impact FLM representatives participated via complete a protocol that detailed value as proposed. We made the conference call. The commenter submission of information for review decision to consider the less indicates that EPA was going to let the including model sensitivity runs, conservative 98th percentile primarily FLM representatives take the lead on evaluation of model performance, etc., because the chemistry modules in the review and testing of the new version of so this can be a sizable hurdle in order CALPUFF model are simplified and CALPUFF (6.4) and coordinate with for EPA to ensure that we are basing likely to provide conservative (higher) EPA regarding this issue. Mr. Tyler Fox, decisions on sound science and the best results for peak impacts. Since Group Leader of the Air Quality tools for actions. Approval of updated CALPUFF’s simplified chemistry could Modeling Group at EPA/OAQPS has CALPUFF versions has been such a lead to model over predictions and thus indicated that EPA will take the lead on large task that EPA/OAQPS has be conservative, EPA decided to use the the review of the new version typically taken the lead in approval of less conservative 98th percentile.86 The (CALPUFF Version 6.4) and that the CALPUFF updates for regulatory use. In modeling that PNM’s contractor new addition of a more sophisticated this case, PNM did not work out a performed for PNM was based on chemistry mechanism is a paradigm protocol to address any of these needed CALPUFF versions that have been shift in treatment of chemistry in elements for EPA Region 6 to conduct updated with an allegedly more robust CALPUFF and requires additional rule a review of PNM’s proposed use of an chemistry and purportedly performs making and public review since alternate model and the modeling better according to the commenter than CALPUFF was never approved for results. The new versions of CALPUFF, the current version of the model chemistry in the GAQM and EPA is version 6.112 or 6.4, that the commenter used to provide modeling analyses have 86 ‘‘Most important, the simplified chemistry in 87 Comment Letter from EPA Region 6 to TCEQ not gone through a full regulatory the model tends to magnify the actual visibility dated February 13, 2007 regarding TCEQ Final review in accordance with 40 CFR part effects of that source. Because of these features and Report ‘‘Screening Analysis of Potential BART- the uncertainties associated with the model, we Eligible Sources in Texas’’, December 2006. 51 Appendix W Section 3.2.2. believe it is appropriate to use the 98th percentile— 88 GAQM (2005 update) part 3.0(b), and 4.2.1.1 a more robust approach that does not give undue and 4.2.1.2. Section 4 dealing with screening 89 Personal communications with Mr. Tyler Fox weight to the extreme tail of the distribution.’’ 70 versions of modeling analyses was updated in the to verify guidance given at meeting pertaining to FR 39104, 39121. 2005 GAQM notice. alternate CALPUFF versions. July 29, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52434 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Furthermore, the currently available chemistry from the point of NOX and report, and concluded that the ammonia information does not support the SO2 emissions that react with emitted levels we used in the model are approval of these versions of the and background ammonia as the plumes appropriate. CALPUFF model for use in making transport to downwind receptors. We We disagree with the use of the ALM. BART determinations. In addition, if have examined the available ammonia There is a lack of documentation, these versions of the model were used, data collected, including the data cited adequate technical justification, and EPA would have to reconsider whether to in the comments.90 Our selection of validation for the development and use using the 98th percentile impact for the IWAQM Phase 2 default ammonia of the ALM. This is discussed further in determining impairment was background constant value of 1 ppb a separate response to comments. appropriate. Therefore, EPA does not (rather than the variable monthly Comment: PNM contracted with Mr. believe the use of CALPUFF version ammonia concentrations suggested by Joe Scire to review and prepare a report 6.112 or 6.4 is appropriate for this the commenter) better represents on PNM’s BART modeling submitted to rulemaking. We believe we have made ammonia concentrations directly NMED during its 2010 state proposed the appropriate choice in using around the SJGS emission sources. The rulemaking process. PNM included this CALPUFF version 5.8. ammonia near the source that is Report as part of its comments to EPA. Comment: The USDA Forest Service available to interact with the plume as PNM asserts that the Report confirms (USFS) provided comments supporting it is emitted is of greater concern for that PNM’s modeling was consistent our assumptions regarding the value of determining visibility impacts from the with the methodology developed for the background ammonia (a constant 1.0 source due to the atmospheric chemical CALPUFF and it was prepared ppb concentration) used for the reactions that occur as the pollutants consistent with the WRAP protocol for visibility analysis. In contrast, PNM and ammonia are transported together to BART modeling and the WRAP BART claims that the use of variable monthly a Class I area. Therefore, it is more modeling. The commenter argues that ammonia values ranging from 0.2 ppb in appropriate to use a background level since EPA has accepted the WRAP the winter months to 1.0 ppb during the for ammonia that is representative of the modeling and used it to support its own summer would better reflect the area around the source rather than the positions with regard to SO2 in the seasonal variations in ammonia ammonia levels at the isolated proposed FIP, and given the fact that concentrations than would a constant, downwind Class I areas. PNM’s modeling was prepared in a assumed ammonia concentration. PNM The pollutants emitted by the source, manner consistent with the WRAP further argued that the use of variable such as sulfate and nitrate, will react modeling, EPA should not need to alter monthly ammonia concentrations with available ammonia present near PNM’s modeling. Moreover, the would still be conservative. Therefore, the release point and this ammonia and modeling results achieved by us are PNM alleges, since a variable monthly ammonia reaction products will be merely a function of our modeling methods, not true differences in ammonia scheme is more representative transported along with the emitted visibility impacts. and conservative, it should be used pollutants to the downwind receptors. In addition to the commenter’s instead of EPA’s constant ammonia The available monitoring data indicates levels. PNM also claims that the use of position that the PNM modeling was that ammonia levels are higher around conducted appropriately, PNM claims the Ammonia Limiting Method (ALM) is the SJGS emission sources and decrease appropriate given the ‘‘conservatism that the Report shows more recent at Mesa Verde, thus supporting that developments in modeling science and (averaging about a factor of two) of the conclusion that when SJGS plumes are assumed ammonia relative to chemistry could be used to make a more transported to Mesa Verde (and other observations.’’ PNM further comments accurate and realistic prediction of the Class I areas), as expected, the SJGS that our supporting documentation also visibility improvements that might emissions react with ammonia levels states that ‘‘alternative levels may be result from installing SCRs at SJGS. The near the SJGS resulting in decreasing used if supported by data’’ and therefore recommendations included modeling ambient ammonia levels downwind we have no basis for criticizing the results from the use of (1) two updated from the SJGS. The annual average variable, monthly ammonia levels used CALPUFF models, Ver. 6.112 and a ammonia values at the Substation and in the modeling prepared by PNM. PNM version with updated chemistry (Ver. Farmington sites, which are the passive further comments that EPA’s decision to 6.4); (2) a refined modeling grid (1 km monitor readings that are closest to the rely on constant high background versus 4 km), and (3) Ammonia Limiting ammonia concentrations unjustifiably SJGS, are above the 1 ppb levels that we Method (ALM). PNM claims use of the results in higher visibility have chosen to model. This supports ALM would take into account the improvements than expected by PNM’s our decision to use a constant 1.0 ppb spatial variations of background more realistic modeling results. ammonia value as being representative ammonia concentrations and account Response: We agree and concur with of the area around the source rather than for the consumption of background the use of the 1 ppb ammonia levels the ammonia levels at the isolated ammonia by background sources of from USFS representatives. We disagree downwind Class I areas. Therefore, the sulfate and nitrate; and that modeling at with the comments supporting the use level we modeled is more appropriate. a higher resolution of 1 km (compared of variable, monthly ammonia As discussed originally in the TSD and to 4 km) is better, to ‘‘better represent concentrations. There are several factors also in our Complete Response to the wind flow in a complex terrain to consider with selecting the Comments for NM Regional Haze/ regime.’’ Using these modeling appropriate ammonia background for Visibility Transport FIP document, we techniques, PNM argues that these estimating visibility impacts, including have taken into consideration the issues alternate modeling results show that the the length and temporal resolution of raised by the commenter and conferred greatest visibility improvement that the ammonia data collected, whether with the author of the 2008 Sather could be achieved at any Class I area by the ammonia data varies depending on installing SCRs at SJGS would be less location of collection in comparison to 90 Sather, et al. ‘‘Baseline ambient gaseous than 0.5 dv per unit, and thus less than ammonia concentrations in the Four Corners area proximity of SJGS plumes, the and eastern Oklahoma, USA,’’ Journal of what a human could perceive. fluctuation of levels throughout the Environmental Monitoring (September 2008) (‘‘The Response: The commenter indicates year, and the importance of plume Sather 2008 report’’). that we used the WRAP photochemical

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52435

modeling to support our action on SO2 had been generated, some problems ppb background ammonia concentration controls and from this, somehow with the changes from the previous on multiple occasions in 2008 as they concludes we should accept PNM’s CALPUFF modeling system that were were developing the proposed RH SIP. BART CALPUFF visibility modeling, included in CALPUFF Version 6.211 These numerous deviations from our allegedly consistent with WRAP and another version referred to as the guidance methods and procedures and protocols for assessing the visibility ‘‘VISTAS version’’ had been use of an alternate model version were impacts of SJGS. In this instance, the identified.92 Version 6.211 has been not considered by the commenter. These commenter appears to confuse two found to set up situations where the deviations are discussed further in the types of modeling. As we discuss boundary layer could artificially Technical Support Document that elsewhere in this notice, we did rely on collapse creating unrealistic accompanied our proposal. the WRAP’s photochemical modeling in meteorological conditions and As discussed in section 4.3.1 and considering whether New Mexico significantly impacting the modeled table 4–6 of the TSD, our sensitivity sources, specifically SJGS, interfered dispersion (refer to the TSD for modeling results support the conclusion with other States’ visibility plans. The additional details). This assessment that the differences between the WRAP WRAP’s CALPUFF screening modeling leads to EPA’s approval of CALPUFF 5.8 BART screening protocol and our was used to determine which BART- as the approved version, announced on current regulatory approach would not eligible sources were subject to BART. June 29, 2007. Furthermore, PNM did likely change the original determination As a result of the WRAP CALPUFF not consult with Region 6 to establish a by the WRAP and NMED of which screening modeling, New Mexico protocol for additional CALPUFF sources screen out of BART and which identified one source subject to BART modeling as part of the BART visibility are subject to a full BART analysis. We and, as discussed elsewhere, projected analyses, and while they chose to disagree, however, that PNM’s modeling emission reductions that were relied generally follow the protocol developed was acceptable modeling for evaluating upon by the WRAP in their by the WRAP specifically for BART the visibility impacts to inform a BART photochemical modeling. The screening analyses, PNM deviated in determination. It would have been photochemical modeling was used to some ways. In addition, a site specific inappropriate for us to use a CALPUFF consider the emissions from all sources protocol for SJGS should have included model version with known problems/ in the regions and was used to establish additional refinements in model settings errors to support our proposed BART the reasonable progress goals for the and incorporation of data. We determination instead of using the WRAP States. The source-specific specifically noted several deviations CALPUFF version we approved for CALPUFF visibility modeling, on the from appropriate practice in PNM’s regulatory review. Therefore, our BART other hand, requires a site specific implementation of the meteorological CALPUFF visibility modeling sought to modeling approach designed to evaluate processing model for CALPUFF, named correct the deficiencies in the PNM visibility impacts to inform decisions in CALMET, in addition to model versions BART CALPUFF visibility modeling. In a BART determination for a specific issues. PNM’s CALMET modeling addition, given that the emission rates source. Our CALPUFF visibility utilized radii of influence values that we proposed as NOX BART differed modeling, performed using an accepted inconsistent with EPA/FLM guidance, from those used in PNM and NMED’s CALPUFF model version and following and did not follow the EPA/FLM BART visibility modeling, it was applicable guidance and EPA/FLM guidance about including upper air necessary to perform our CALPUFF recommendations, showed significant observational data. Finally, the visibility modeling, following EPA/FLM visibility benefits due to the use of SCR CALPUFF modeling system (including guidance and practices, to assess the as NOX BART at SJGS. CALMET) versions used by PNM did anticipated visibility improvements As discussed elsewhere, since NMED not follow EPA and FLM from the use of SCR with our proposed was previously proposing to install the recommendations and guidance. NMED BART lower emission rate of 0.05 lb of most stringent controls, we did not raise received comment on not being NOX/MMBtu (NMED/PNM modeling some of our concerns with past consistent with established BART used an emission rate of 0.07 lb of NOX/ modeling, since the BART guidelines modeling procedures from the FLM’s MMBtu for SCR). As discussed in the allow some flexibility in the need to during the proposed 308 SIP in August TSD, we also had updated emission conduct modeling when the most 2010. PNM has also alleged that variable estimates for sulfuric acid emissions stringent controls are being required. In ammonia concentrations should be based on the latest information that was our review of PNM’s earlier BART used, which is inconsistent with the included in our modeling. We therefore CALPUFF visibility modeling, we did WRAP’s BART screening protocol and disagree with the commenter and have note some inconsistencies between modeling. Furthermore, NMED explained why we needed to do our PNM’s CALPUFF modeling protocol specifically requested that PNM perform own BART CALPUFF visibility analysis. and the EPA approved modeling modeling using the default constant 1 We used the approved version of the techniques for source-specific modeling model in accordance with the to support a BART determination. As 92 ‘‘CALPUFF: Status and Update,’’ Dennis appropriate procedures, as discussed stated in the TSD that accompanied our Atkinson, Presentation at Regional/State/Local further in other response to comments proposal, however, we agree with the Modelers Workshop, May 16, 2007. (http:// and we are confident in using our www.cleanairinfo.com/regionalstatelocalmodeling commenter that the PNM CALPUFF workshop/archive/2007/presentations/ results as one of the five factors in modeling generally followed the BART Wednesday%20-%20May%2016%202007/ making a BART determination. The protocol for BART screening analyses CALPUFF_status_update.pdf); EPA report, commenter did not provide any direct developed by the WRAP.91 After the ‘‘Assessment of the ‘‘VISTAS’’ Version of the comments indicating that our BART CALPUFF Modeling System,’’ EPA–454/R–08–007, WRAP CALPUFF screening modeling August 2008 available at (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ visibility modeling differed in any way scram/reports/calpuff_vistas_assessment_report_ from EPA and FLM modeling guidance 91 CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART final.pdf); ‘‘CALPUFF Regulatory Update,’’ Roger and standard practices that EPA and the Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in W. Brode, Presentation at Regional/State/Local FLM representatives have approved in the Western United States (August 15, 2006; Modelers Workshop, June 10–12, 2008, available at available at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/ (http://www.cleanairinfo.com/regionalstatelocal other protocols. WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf modelingworkshop/archive/2008/presentations/ With regard to the commenter’s ***). BRODE_CA.pdf). suggestion that more recent versions of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52436 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

CALPUFF be used, as discussed in more performance must be examined through at the Mesa Verde Class I area detail in another response, the two appropriate statistical analysis to (approximately 42 km from SJGS). The suggested model versions have not gone understand if the CALMET diagnostic use of 36 km resolution model through the appropriate review to assess adjustments perform appropriately. The predictions results in an average if they are founded in appropriate Report presented no evidence to support ammonia level for the entire 36km by 36 science and perform adequately and the claim that a 1-km resolution km grid cell and does not reflect the reliably and are an improvement to the increases the accuracy of the final wind higher ammonia concentrations current version that is acceptable for field in specifically modeling the SJGS. measured near the SJGS which are of regulatory actions. PNM did not submit The commenter has not provided any greater concern for determining the modeling files as part of its statistical or other analyses to justify visibility impacts from the source. In comments. Instead, the PNM submitted such a deviation for modeling of the addition, the CMAQ model predictions report only includes a summary of the SJGS. Consistent with EPA–FLM that the commenter used are not an modeling results. Therefore, sufficient recommendations for CALMET and the appropriate estimation of background evidence has not been presented to WRAP BART screening modeling ammonia available for reaction with the support PNM’s claims had we wished to protocol, we determined that a 4-km SJGS emissions since this CMAQ review this modeling done with non- grid resolution should be used. simulation of ‘‘background’’ approved models. Because the model We also disagree with the use of the concentrations already includes SJGS results provided by the commenter Ammonia Limit Method which is also emissions and reactions they have in the cannot be evaluated and because we called ALM and note that it is atmosphere. The background ammonia have no basis to conclude that these inconsistent with the nitrate concentration that the commenter input versions provide reliable results, we did repartitioning approach that has been into the non-approved CALPUFF model not conduct a full review of the previously accepted by the FLMs and has already been decreased by reaction submitted summary of the model output EPA. There is a lack of documentation, with SJGS emissions in the CMAQ results. In looking over the summary of adequate technical justification, and model predictions. the modeling results in the submitted validation for the development and use The commenter also provided a report, however, we continue to have of the ALM. We and the FLMs have summary of the modeling results based significant concerns with the model previously reviewed protocols on variable ammonia levels using version and options/inputs used given proposing using ALM and we and/or the CALPUFF version 6.112 and 6.4. We that the results are indicating drastically FLMs have not approved the use of the disagree with the use of variable lower values than our modeling that proposed ALM procedure. In general ammonia as we have responded to was conducted with CALPUFF Version terms, one of the key issues is ALM is comments about using variable 5.8. a method to have emissions from other ammonia levels in another response to sources consume ammonia, so there is comment. We note that variable We disagree with the use of a higher less ammonia to react with the source of ammonia levels were not approved in grid-resolution (1-km) for modeling of interest being modeled. Since ammonia the WRAP’s BART screening modeling visibility impacts using the CALPUFF levels from the local area around the protocol, nor in protocols by NMED in modeling system. Current EPA guidance plant were used by EPA, to do their 2010 proposal, nor by EPA Region from the May 15, 2009 EPA Model calculations in the modeling to consume 6 as the commenter seemed to indicate Clearinghouse memorandum defaults to ammonia from surrounding sources in their comment. a horizontal grid resolution of 4-km. would unnaturally consume ammonia We note that the summary of the While this guidance does not that was actually monitored in the report’s BART visibility modeling automatically preclude the use of higher vicinity of the SJGS. The ALM has not results shows that an SCR emission rate resolution meteorological fields, the been approved by EPA and the FLMs of 0.07 lb/MMBtu was used, rather than memorandum discusses five issues that through interagency workgroups the 0.05 lb/MMBtu that we included in should be addressed in considering use (IWAQM or FLAG) as an approved part our proposal. Using this higher level of of a 1-km meteorological grid. None of of CALPUFF based visibility analyses. 0.07 lb/MMBtu would bias the these five elements were addressed by The commenter has not provided any reduction in impacts from the the commenter. Among the elements adequate justification, documentation, installation of SCR lower than what we that should have been considered were or other analyses to justify the proposed proposed. If their modeling was a discussion of the nature of SJGS’s use of ALM. conducted using our proposed emission source-receptor relationship to Class I Furthermore, the use of ALM requires rate, it may have shown a value greater areas in the modeling domain and the input of background ammonia than 0.5 dv for each individual unit. meteorological characteristics which concentrations as well as background This is not relevant though given the govern these source-receptor concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, and numerous issues associated with their relationships, a statistical performance nitric acid. The commenter used modeling analysis as discussed above. analysis showing the inadequacy of the background concentrations derived from Moreover, as noted in the BART 4-km CALMET fields, demonstration of modeling simulations of the EPA Guidelines, the CALPUFF model results the technical adequacy of CALMET Community Multiscale Air Quality are useful for considering the diagnostic algorithms in a complex Modeling System (CMAQ) for 2002. The comparative impacts of single sources terrain situation, statistical evaluation Report’s summary shows that monthly on visibility impairment in a relative demonstrating that 1-km CALMET fields averages of predicted concentrations for sense and relative to other sources, perform better than 4-km fields in this ammonia, sulfate, nitrate, and nitric SJGS’s impacts are significant. We note specific situation, and discussion of acid at a grid resolution of 36 km were that the SJGS is one of the single largest how the enhanced resolution impacts used as model inputs to apply the ALM. sources of NOX in the United States and the air quality model. When CALMET is As discussed in a separate response to located close to 16 Class I areas. As using much higher grid resolutions, comments, available ammonia monitor such, even without modeling results, such as 1-km grid, on the original data indicates that ammonia one could conclude that the source is Numerical Weather Prediction files, the concentrations are higher in the vicinity likely to contribute to significant CALMET meteorological model of the SJGS and city of Farmington than visibility impacts at multiple Class I

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52437

areas and that the installation of SCR section 309 of 40 CFR part 51 and the However, modeling conducted by us would lead to meaningful visibility withdrawn regional haze SIP proposal and some modeling results provided by benefits. We also note that our modeling under section 308 both demonstrates the PNM’s contractors indicate that looked at the dv improvements at 16 State’s intent to regulate regional haze visibility impairment could worsen if Class I areas and indicates even greater during the first planning period with emissions of H2SO4 are not limited in an visibility benefits at other Class I areas controls only on emissions of SO2, NOX enforceable manner. We do not wish to than Mesa Verde. The summary of the and PM. The commenter concluded that allow a growth in emissions to occur modeling results provided by the any proposal by EPA to limit emissions that would undermine the NOX commenter do not evaluate of either H2SO4 or NH3 from New reductions that we are requiring to improvements at other Class I areas or Mexico sources goes beyond the ensure that NM emission sources do not any cumulative visibility improvement planned scope of the State’s regional interfere with visibility in other states as benefits of SCR, yet they asserted that haze SIP and should be abandoned. The required by the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). their analysis showed the maximum commenter also indicated it is unclear Therefore, we believe we have struck impacts from SCR at any Class I area. As from EPA’s proposal if its action is the right balance in limiting emissions we note elsewhere, we actually being proposed under CAA section of H2SO4 to a reasonable level verified projected the largest visibility 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as an Interstate by annual stack testing. We are improvement due to SCR control level Transport provision related to visibility, controlling H2SO4 under the BART at the Canyonlands Class I area. As a id., or instead under CAA section 169a provisions of the RHR and CAA Section result, there is no evidence to support as part of a BART determination for the 110. Our regulatory authority includes the commenter’s claim that the largest SJGS. CAA section 169A(b)(2), 40 CFR improvement was less than 0.5 dv at Response: For the reasons discussed 51.308(e)(1)(ii) and CAA section any Class I area. Given the relative size elsewhere in our response to comments, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). of SJGS and its location as compared to we have determined that neither an other BART sources, such results would ammonia limit nor ammonia monitoring IV. Statutory and Executive Order be surprising. We conclude that our requirements are appropriate. The Reviews modeling which was performed using design plans for the SCRs that will be A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory an accepted CALPUFF model version submitted will address design and Planning and Review and Executive and following applicable guidance and operation of SCRs based on a maximum Order 13563: Improving Regulation and EPA/FLM recommendations is an ammonia slip level of 2 ppm. Proper Regulatory Review appropriate approach for assessing the design and operation of the SCR should visibility benefits due to the use of SCR. be protective of visibility impairment This action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of This modeling confirmed that our NOX modeling projections. We disagree with BART determination will result in the commenter concerning the need to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, significant visibility benefits. regulate H2SO4. If a power plant is October 4, 1993) and is therefore not Comment: A commenter alleged that installing SCR at an existing facility in subject to review under Executive EPA lacks the requisite statutory an area where a state has a concern Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, authorization in this proceeding to about PM2.5 and regional haze impacts, January 21, 2011). This action finalizes implement its proposed emission limits it would be normal for a state to a source-specific FIP for the San Juan for H2SO4 and NH3 emissions from the consider the imposition of limits on Power Generating Station (SJGS) in New SJGS. The commenter indicated that if H2SO4 to minimize/limit the amount of Mexico. EPA has not shown that limits on degradation in visibility due to any B. Paperwork Reduction Act emissions of H2SO4 and NH3 from the increases in these pollutants. SJGS will result in reduced visibility As we discussed in our proposal, we This action does not impose an impairment or make reasonable progress have concluded that the low sulfur coal information collection burden under the in a class I area’s Reasonable Progress burned at the SJGS generates very little provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Goal, the Agency has no authority under sulfur trioxide (SO3), and hence H2SO4, Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under the CAA § 169A to require the proposed which is formed when SO3 combines Paperwork Reduction Act, a ‘‘collection emission limits on those pollutants from with water in the flue gas to form of information’’ is defined as a SJGS. The commenter also alleged that H2SO4. In addition, SCR catalysts are requirement for ‘‘answers to * * * if EPA has not shown interference from available with a low SO2 to SO3 identical reporting or recordkeeping H2SO4 or NH3 emissions, EPA has no conversion of 0.5%, further limiting the requirements imposed on ten or more authority to regulate these pollutants production of H2SO4. Nevertheless, we persons * * *’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). conducted several modeling runs with Because the FIP applies to a single EPA has not shown that its conclusory different H2SO4 emission levels and that facility, (SJGS), the Paperwork statement that the proposed limits will modeling indicated that increases in Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 ‘‘minimize the contribution of these H2SO4 did result in some visibility CFR 1320(c). compounds to visibility impairment’’ degradation at Class I areas in New Burden means the total time, effort, or falls short of demonstrating a visibility- Mexico and surrounding states. The financial resources expended by persons impairment contribution that is H2SO4 runs can be found in the TSD to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose necessary to authorize regulation of and its appendices or in the RTC for this or provide information to or for a those compounds under Section 169A. action. Some of the H2SO4 runs were not Federal agency. This includes the time The commenter indicated that if EPA used in the final decision modeling needed to review instructions; develop, has no other policy reason other than analysis, but provided a basis for being acquire, install, and utilize technology appropriate considerations of comity, concerned about potential H2SO4 and systems for the purposes of EPA should defer to New Mexico’s impacts and thus limiting the amount of collecting, validating, and verifying determination of which pollutants to growth in H2SO4 from our action. information, processing and regulate with BART requirements. The In summary, we conclude that maintaining information, and disclosing commenter noted that New Mexico’s emissions of H2SO4 will not be a and providing information; adjust the proposed regional haze SIP under significant concern at the SJGS. existing ways to comply with any

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52438 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

previously applicable instructions and requirements that might significantly or I. National Technology Transfer and requirements; train personnel to be able uniquely affect small governments. This Advancement Act to respond to a collection of rule contains regulatory requirements Section 12(d) of the National information; search data sources; that apply only to the San Juan Power Technology Transfer and Advancement complete and review the collection of Generating Station (SJGS) in New Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law information; and transmit or otherwise Mexico. 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) disclose the information. directs EPA to use voluntary consensus An agency may not conduct or E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism standards in its regulatory activities sponsor, and a person is not required to This action does not have federalism unless to do so would be inconsistent respond to a collection of information implications. It will not have substantial with applicable law or otherwise unless it displays a currently valid OMB direct effects on the states, on the impractical. Voluntary consensus control number. The OMB control relationship between the national standards are technical standards (e.g., numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR government and the states, or on the materials specifications, test methods, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. distribution of power and sampling procedures, and business responsibilities among the various C. Regulatory Flexibility Act practices) that are developed or adopted levels of government, as specified in by voluntary consensus standards The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Executive Order 13132. This action bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide generally requires an agency to prepare merely prescribes EPA’s action to Congress, through OMB, explanations a regulatory flexibility analysis of any address the State not fully meeting its when the Agency decides not to use rule subject to notice and comment obligation to prohibit emissions from available and applicable voluntary rulemaking requirements under the interfering with other states measures to consensus standards. This rule would Administrative Procedure Act or any protect visibility. Thus, Executive Order require the affected units at SJGS to other statute unless the agency certifies 13132 does not apply to this action. In meet the applicable monitoring that the rule will not have a significant the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 economic impact on a substantial consistent with EPA policy to promote already incorporates a number of number of small entities. Small entities communications between EPA and State voluntary consensus standards. include small businesses, small and local governments, EPA specifically Consistent with the Agency’s organizations, and small governmental solicited comment on the proposed rule Performance Based Measurement jurisdictions. from State and local officials. For purposes of assessing the impacts System (PBMS), Part 75 sets forth of today’s rule on small entities, small F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation performance criteria that allow the use entity is defined as: (1) A small business and Coordination With Indian Tribal of alternative methods to the ones set as defined by the Small Business Governments forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 This rule does not have tribal intended to be more flexible and cost CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental implications as specified by Executive effective for the regulated community; it jurisdiction that is a government of a Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, is also intended to encourage innovation city, county, town, school district or 2000), because the rule neither imposes in analytical technology and improved special district with a population of less substantial direct compliance costs on data quality. At this time, EPA is not than 50,000; and (3) a small tribal governments, nor preempts tribal recommending any revisions to part 75; organization that is any not-for-profit law. Therefore, the requirements of however, EPA periodically revises the enterprise which is independently section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive test procedures set forth in part 75. owned and operated and is not Order do not apply to this rule. When EPA revises the test procedures dominant in its field. However, consistent with EPA policy, set forth in part 75 in the future, EPA After considering the economic EPA consulted with one Tribe on this will address the use of any new impacts of this action on small entities, action. voluntary consensus standards that are EPA certifies that this action will not equivalent. Currently, even if a test have a significant economic impact on G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of procedure is not set forth in part 75, a substantial number of small entities. Children From Environmental Health EPA is not precluding the use of any The FIP for SJGS being finalized today Risks and Safety Risks method, whether it constitutes a does not impose any new requirements EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR voluntary consensus standard or not, as on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only long as it meets the performance criteria Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 to those regulatory actions that concern specified; however, any alternative (DC Cir. 1985). health or safety risks, such that the methods must be approved through the analysis required under section 5–501 of petition process under 40 CFR 75.66 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the EO has the potential to influence the before they are used. (UMRA) regulation. This action is not subject to J. Executive Order 12898: Federal This rule does not contain a Federal EO 13045 because it implements mandate that may result in expenditures Actions To Address Environmental specific standards established by Justice in Minority Populations and of $100 million or more for State, local, Congress in statutes. and tribal governments, in the aggregate, Low-Income Populations or the private sector in any one year. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Our cost estimate indicates that the total Concerning Regulations That February 16, 1994), establishes federal annual cost of compliance with this rule Significantly Affect Energy Supply, executive policy on environmental is below this threshold. Thus, this rule Distribution, or Use justice. Its main provision directs is not subject to the requirements of This action is not subject to Executive federal agencies, to the greatest extent sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, practicable and permitted by law, to This rule is also not subject to the 2001)), because it is not a significant make environmental justice part of their requirements of section 203 of UMRA regulatory action under Executive Order mission by identifying and addressing, because it contains no regulatory 12866. as appropriate, disproportionately high

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52439

and adverse human health or Intergovernmental relations, Interstate Heat input means heat derived from environmental effects of their programs, transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, combustion of fuel in a unit and does policies, and activities on minority Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional not include the heat input from populations and low-income haze, Reporting and recordkeeping preheated combustion air, recirculated populations in the United States. requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility. flue gases, or exhaust gases from other EPA has determined that this rule will Dated: August 4, 2011. sources. Heat input shall be calculated not have disproportionately high and in accordance with part 75 of this Lisa P. Jackson, adverse human health or environmental chapter, using data from certified O2 effects on minority or low-income Administrator. and stack gas flow rate monitors. populations because it increases the For the reasons set out in the Owner or Operator means any person level of environmental protection for all preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code who owns, leases, operates, controls, or affected populations without having any of Federal Regulations is amended as supervises the plant or any of the coal disproportionately high and adverse follows: burning equipment designated as Units human health or environmental effects 1, 2, 3, or 4 at the plant. PART 52—[AMENDED] on any population, including any Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) means all minority or low-income population. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 oxides of nitrogen except nitrous oxide, This rule limits emissions of pollutants continues to read as follows: as measured by test methods set forth in from a single stationary source, the 40 CFR part 60. SJGS. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6 K. Congressional Review Act Subpart GG—[Amended] or his/her authorized representative. The Congressional Review Act, 5 (d) Emissions Limitations and Control U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small ■ 2. Section 52.1628 is added to read as Measures. (1) Within 180 days of Business Regulatory Enforcement follows: September 21, 2011, the owner or Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides § 52.1628 Interstate pollutant transport operator shall submit a plan to the that before a rule may take effect, the and regional haze provisions; what are the Regional Administrator that identifies agency promulgating the rule must FIP requirements for San Juan Generating the air pollution control equipment and submit a rule report, which includes a Station emissions affecting visibility? schedule for complying with paragraph copy of the rule, to each House of the (a) Applicability. The provisions of (d) of this section. The NOX control Congress and to the Comptroller General this section shall apply to each owner device included in this plan shall be of the United States. EPA will submit a or operator of the coal burning designed to meet the NOX emission rate report containing this action and other equipment designated as Units 1, 2, 3, limit identified in paragraph (d) of this required information to the U.S. Senate, or 4 at the San Juan Generating Station section with an ammonia slip of no the U.S. House of Representatives, and in San Juan County, New Mexico (the greater than 2.0 ppm. The owner or the Comptroller General of the United plant). operator shall submit amendments to States prior to publication of the rule in (b) Compliance Dates. (1) Compliance the plan to the Regional Administrator the Federal Register. A major rule with the requirements of this section is as changes occur. cannot take effect until 60 days after it required by: (2) NOX emission rate limit. The NOX emission rate limit for each unit in the is published in the Federal Register. (i) SO2: No later than 5 years after This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as September 21, 2011. plant, expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO ), shall be 0.05 pounds per million defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule (ii) NOX: No later than 5 years after 2 will be effective on September 21, 2011. September 21, 2011. British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu), as (iii) H SO : No later than 5 years after averaged over a rolling 30 boiler- L. Judicial Review 2 4 September 21, 2011. operating-day period. The hourly NOX Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, (2) On and after the compliance date and O2 data used to determine the NOX petitions for judicial review of this of this rule, no owner or operator shall emission rates shall be in compliance action must be filed in the United States discharge or cause the discharge of NOX, with the requirements in part 75 of this Court of Appeals for the appropriate SO2, or H2SO4 into the atmosphere from chapter. For each unit on each boiler- circuit by October 21, 2011. Pursuant to Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 in excess of the limits operating-day, the hourly NOX CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is for these pollutants. emissions measured in lbs/MMBtu, subject to the requirements of CAA (c) Definitions. All terms used in this shall be averaged over the hours the unit section 307(d) as it promulgates a FIP part but not defined herein shall have was in operation to obtain a daily boiler- under CAA section 110(c). Filing a the meaning given them in the CAA and operating-day average. Each day, the 30- petition for reconsideration by the in parts 51 and 60 of this chapter. For day-rolling average NOX emission rate Administrator of this final rule does not the purposes of this section: for each unit (in lbs/MMBtu) shall be affect the finality of this action for the 24-hour period means the period of determined by averaging the daily purposes of judicial review nor does it time between 12:01 a.m. and 12 boiler-operating-day average emission extend the time within which a petition midnight. rate from that day and those from the for judicial review may be filed, and Air pollution control equipment preceding 29 days. shall not postpone the effectiveness of includes baghouses, particulate or (3) SO2 emission rate limit. The SO2 such rule or action. This action may not gaseous scrubbers, and any other emission rate limit for each unit in the be challenged later in proceedings to apparatus utilized to control emissions plant shall be 0.15 pounds per million enforce its requirements. See CAA of regulated air contaminants which British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu), as section 307(b)(2). would be emitted to the atmosphere. averaged over a rolling 30 boiler- Boiler-operating-day means any 24- operating-day period. The hourly NOX List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 hour period between 12:00 midnight and O2 data used to determine the NOX Environmental protection, Air and the following midnight during emission rates shall be in compliance pollution control, Best available control which any fuel is combusted at any time with the requirements in part 75 of this technology. Incorporation by reference, at the steam generating unit. chapter. For each unit on each boiler-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:58 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 52440 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

operating-day, the hourly SO2 emissions an hourly average may be computed (excluding hours in which required measured in lbs/MMBtu, shall be from at least two data points separated calibrations and QA tests are performed) averaged over the hours the unit was in by a minimum of 15 minutes (where the shall be counted as an hour of monitor operation to obtain a daily boiler- unit operates for more than one downtime. operating-day average. Each day, the 30- quadrant in an hour) if data are (g) Equipment Operations. At all day-rolling average SO2 emission rate unavailable as a result of performance of times, including periods of startup, for each unit (in lbs/MMBtu) shall be calibration, quality assurance, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner determined by averaging the daily preventive maintenance activities, or or operator shall, to the extent boiler-operating-day average emission backups of data from data acquisition practicable, maintain and operate the rate from that day and those from the and handling system, and recertification unit including associated air pollution preceding 29 days. events. Each required CEMS must control equipment in a manner (4) Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) emission obtain valid data for at least 90.0 consistent with good air pollution rate limit: Emissions of H2SO4 from each percent of the unit operating hours, on × ¥4 control practices for minimizing unit shall be limited to 2.6 10 lb/ an annual basis. emissions. Determination of whether MMBtu on an hourly basis. (3) Emissions of H2SO4 shall be acceptable operating and maintenance (e) Testing and monitoring. measured within 180 days of start up of procedures are being used will be based Notwithstanding any language to the the NOX control device and annually on information available to the Regional contrary, the paragraphs in this section thereafter using EPA Test Method 8A Administrator which may include, but apply at all times to Units 1, 2, 3, and (CTM–013). 4 at the plant. is not limited to, monitoring results, (1) By the applicable compliance date Note to paragraph (e)(3): EPA Test Method review of operating and maintenance 8A is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ procedures, and inspection of the unit. in paragraph (b) of this section, the emc/ctm/ctm-013.pdf. owner or operator shall install, calibrate, (h) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding maintain and operate Continuous (f) Reporting and Recordkeeping any other provision in this Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) Requirements. Unless otherwise stated implementation plan, any credible for NOX, SO2, stack gas flow rate, and all requests, reports, submittals, evidence or information relevant as to O2 on Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 in accordance notifications, and other communications whether the unit would have been in with part 75 of this chapter. The owner to the Regional Administrator required compliance with applicable or operator shall also comply with the by this section shall be submitted, requirements if the appropriate applicable quality assurance procedures unless instructed otherwise, to the performance or compliance test had in part 75 of this chapter for these Director, Multimedia Planning and been performed, can be used to establish CEMS. Continuous monitoring systems Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental whether or not the owner or operator for NOX, SO2, stack gas flow rate, and Protection Agency, Region 6, to the has violated or is in violation of any O2 that have been certified for use under attention of Mail Code: 6PD, at 1445 standard or applicable emission limit in the Acid Rain Program, and that are Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas the plan. continuing to meet the on-going quality- 75202–2733. (2) Emissions in excess of the level of (1) The owner or operator shall keep assurance requirements of that program, the applicable emission limit or records of all CEMS data, stack test data, satisfy the requirements of this requirement that occur due to a and CEMS quality-assurance tests paragraph (e)(1). Compliance with the malfunction shall constitute a violation required under this section for a period emission limits for NOX and SO2 shall of the applicable emission limit. be determined by using data from these of at least 3 years. CEMS. (2) For each unit subject to the ■ 3. Section 52.1629 is added to read as (2) The CEMS required by this rule emission limitations for SO2, and NOX, follows: shall be in continuous operation during in this section, the owner or operator all periods of operation of the coal shall comply with the excess emission § 52.1629 Visibility protection. burning equipment, including periods reporting requirements in §§ 60.7(c) and The portion of the State of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, (d) of this chapter, on a semiannual Implementation Plan revision received except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, basis, unless more frequent (e.g., on September 17, 2007, from the State calibration checks, and zero and span quarterly) reporting is requested by the of New Mexico for the purpose of adjustments. Continuous monitoring Regional Administrator. For SO2 and addressing the visibility requirements of systems for measuring SO2, NOX, and O2 NOX, any day on which the 30-day Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) shall complete a minimum of one cycle rolling average emission limit in for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 of operation (sampling, analyzing, and paragraph (d) of this section is not met fine particulate matter National data recording) for each successive 15- shall be counted as an excess emissions Ambient Air Quality Standards is minute period. Hourly averages shall be day. The duration of the excess disapproved. computed using at least one data point emissions period shall be the number of in each fifteen minute quadrant of an unit operating hours on that day. Any [FR Doc. 2011–20682 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] hour. Notwithstanding this requirement, hour in which a CEMS is out-of-service BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:17 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Vol. 76 Monday, No. 162 August 22, 2011

Part III Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 54 and 602 Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2590 Department of Health and Human Services 45 CFR Part 147 Summary of Benefits and Coverage and the Uniform Glossary; Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52442 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY posted on the Internet exactly as of the comment period to either of the received, and can be retrieved by most following addresses: Internal Revenue Service Internet search engines. No deletions, a. For delivery in Washington, DC— modifications, or redactions will be Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 26 CFR Parts 54 and 602 made to the comments received, as they Services, Department of Health and are public records. Comments may be Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert [REG–140038–10] submitted anonymously. H. Humphrey Building, 200 RIN 1545–BJ94 Department of Labor. Comments to Independence Avenue, SW., the Department of Labor, identified by Washington, DC 20201. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RIN 1210–AB52, by one of the following (Because access to the interior of the methods: Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not Employee Benefits Security • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// readily available to persons without Administration www.regulations.gov. Follow the Federal government identification, instructions for submitting comments. commenters are encouraged to leave 29 CFR Part 2590 • E-mail: E- their comments in the CMS drop slots RIN 1210–AB52 [email protected]. located in the main lobby of the • Mail or Hand Delivery: Office of building. A stamp-in clock is available DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Health Plan Standards and Compliance for persons wishing to retain a proof of HUMAN SERVICES Assistance, Employee Benefits Security filing by stamping in and retaining an Administration, Room N–5653, U.S. extra copy of the comments being filed.) 45 CFR Part 147 Department of Labor, 200 Constitution b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid [CMS–9982–P] Attention: RIN 1210–AB52. Services, Department of Health and RIN 0938–AQ73 Comments received by the Human Services, 7500 Security Department of Labor will be posted Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. Summary of Benefits and Coverage without change to http:// If you intend to deliver your and the Uniform Glossary www.regulations.gov and http:// comments to the Baltimore address, www.dol.gov/ebsa, and available for please call (410) 786–7195 in advance to AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, public inspection at the Public schedule your arrival with one of our Department of the Treasury; Employee Disclosure Room, N–1513, Employee staff members. Benefits Security Administration, Benefits Security Administration, 200 Comments mailed to the addresses Department of Labor; Centers for Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, indicated as appropriate for hand or Medicare & Medicaid Services, DC 20210. courier delivery may be delayed and Department of Health and Human Department of Health and Human received after the comment period. Services. Services. In commenting, please refer to Submission of comments on ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. file code CMS–9982–P. Because of staff paperwork requirements. You may and resource limitations, we cannot submit comments on this document’s SUMMARY: This document contains accept comments by facsimile (FAX) paperwork requirements by following proposed regulations regarding transmission. the instructions at the end of the disclosure of the summary of benefits You may submit comments in one of ‘‘Collection of Information and coverage and the uniform glossary four ways (please choose only one of the Requirements’’ section in this for group health plans and health ways listed): document. insurance coverage in the group and 1. Electronically. You may submit Inspection of Public Comments: All individual markets under the Patient electronic comments on this regulation comments received before the close of Protection and Affordable Care Act. to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the comment period are available for This document implements the the instructions under the ‘‘More Search viewing by the public, including any disclosure requirements to help plans Options’’ tab. personally identifiable or confidential and individuals better understand their 2. By regular mail. You may mail business information that is included in health coverage, as well as other written comments to the following a comment. We post all comments coverage options. The templates and address only: Centers for Medicare & received before the close of the instructions to be used in making these Medicaid Services,Department of Health comment period on the following Web disclosures are being issued separately and Human Services,Attention: CMS– site as soon as possible after they have in today’s Federal Register. 9982–P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD been received: http:// DATES: Comment date. Comments are 21244–1850. www.regulations.gov. Follow the search due on or before October 21, 2011. Please allow sufficient time for mailed instructions on that Web site to view ADDRESSES: Written comments may be comments to be received before the public comments. submitted to any of the addresses close of the comment period. Comments received timely will also specified below. Any comment that is 3. By express or overnight mail. You be available for public inspection as submitted to any Department will be may send written comments to the they are received, generally beginning shared with the other Departments. following address only: Centers for approximately three weeks after Please do not submit duplicates. Medicare & Medicaid Services, publication of a document, at the All comments will be made available Department of Health and Human headquarters of the Centers for Medicare to the public. Warning: Do not include Services, Attention: CMS–9982–P, Mail & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security any personally identifiable information Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, (such as name, address, or other contact Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. Monday through Friday of each week information) or confidential business 4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. EST. To information that you do not want you may deliver (by hand or courier) schedule an appointment to view public publicly disclosed. All comments are your written comments before the close comments, phone 1–800–743–3951.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52443

Internal Revenue Service. Comments group health plans.1 The Affordable Act. These proposed regulations to the IRS, identified by REG–140038– Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to the propose standards for implementing 10, by one of the following methods: Employee Retirement Income Security PHS Act section 2715. As discussed • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Act (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to more fully below, templates and www.regulations.gov. Follow the the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) to instructions for meeting the disclosure instructions for submitting comments. incorporate the provisions of part A of requirements of PHS Act section 2715 • Mail: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–140038– title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA are being issued separately in today’s 10), Room 5205, Internal Revenue and the Code, and make them Federal Register. Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin applicable to group health plans, and II. Overview of the Proposed Station, Washington, DC 20044. health insurance issuers providing Regulations • Hand or courier delivery: Monday health insurance coverage in connection through Friday between the hours of 8 with group health plans. The PHS Act A. Summary of Benefits and Coverage a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR sections incorporated by this reference 1. In General (REG–140038–10), Courier’s Desk, are sections 2701 through 2728. PHS Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Act sections 2701 through 2719A are Section 2715 of the PHS Act, added Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington substantially new, though they by the Affordable Care Act, directs the DC 20224. incorporate some provisions of prior Departments to develop standards for All submissions to the IRS will be law. PHS Act sections 2722 through use by a group health plan and a health open to public inspection and copying 2728 are sections of prior law insurance issuer in compiling and in room 1621, 1111 Constitution renumbered, with some, mostly minor, providing a summary of benefits and Avenue, NW., Washington, DC from 9 changes. coverage (SBC) that ‘‘accurately a.m. to 4 p.m. Subtitles A and C of title I of the describes the benefits and coverage FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Affordable Care Act amend the under the applicable plan or coverage.’’ Amy Turner or Heather Raeburn, requirements of title XXVII of the PHS The statute directs the Departments, in Employee Benefits Security Act (changes to which are incorporated developing such standards, to ‘‘consult Administration, Department of Labor, at into ERISA by section 715). The with the National Association of (202) 693–8335; Karen Levin, Internal preemption provisions of ERISA section Insurance Commissioners’’ (referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘NAIC’’), ‘‘a Revenue Service, Department of the 731 and PHS Act section 2724 2 working group composed of Treasury, at (202) 622–6080; Jennifer (implemented in 29 CFR 2590.731(a) representatives of health insurance- Libster or Padma Shah, Centers for and 45 CFR 146.143(a)) apply so that the related consumer advocacy Medicare & Medicaid Services, requirements of part 7 of ERISA and organizations, health insurance issuers, Department of Health and Human title XXVII of the PHS Act, as amended health care professionals, patient Services, at (301) 492–4252. by the Affordable Care Act, are not to be advocates including those representing Customer Service Information: ‘‘construed to supersede any provision individuals with limited English Individuals interested in obtaining of State law which establishes, proficiency, and other qualified information from the Department of implements, or continues in effect any individuals.’’ The NAIC convened a Labor concerning employment-based standard or requirement solely relating working group (NAIC working group) health coverage laws may call the EBSA to health insurance issuers in comprised of a diverse group of Toll-Free Hotline at 1–866–444–EBSA connection with group or individual stakeholders. This working group met (3272) or visit the Department of Labor’s health insurance coverage except to the frequently each month for over one year Web site (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa). In extent that such standard or while developing its recommendations.3 addition, information from HHS on requirement prevents the application of Throughout the process, NAIC working private health insurance for consumers a requirement’’ of provisions added to group draft documents and meeting can be found on the Centers for the PHS Act by the Affordable Care Act. notes were displayed on the NAIC’s Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Accordingly, State laws that with Web site for public review, and several Web site (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ stricter health insurance issuer interested parties filed formal HealthInsReformforConsume/ requirements than those imposed by the _ comments. In addition to participation 01 Overview.asp) and information on PHS Act will not be superseded by from the NAIC working group members, health reform can be found at http:// those provisions. Preemption and State conference calls and in-person meetings www.healthcare.gov. flexibility under PHS Act section 2715 were open to other interested parties SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: are discussed more fully below under section II.D. 3 In developing its recommendations, the NAIC I. Background The Departments of Health and considered the results of various consumer testing The Patient Protection and Affordable Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the sponsored by both insurance industry and Treasury (the Departments) are taking a consumer associations. Specifically, the draft SBC Care Act, Public Law 111–148, was template, including the coverage examples, and the enacted on March 23, 2010; the Health phased approach to issuing regulations draft uniform glossary underwent consumer testing Care and Education Reconciliation Act, implementing the revised PHS Act to assist in determining adjustments to ensure the sections 2701 through 2719A and final product was consumer friendly. Summaries of Public Law 111–152, was enacted on this testing are available at: http://www.naic.org/ March 30, 2010 (these are collectively related provisions of the Affordable Care documents/committees_b_consumer_information_ known as the ‘‘Affordable Care Act’’). 101012_ahip_focus_group_summary.pdf; http:// The Affordable Care Act reorganizes, 1 The term ‘‘group health plan’’ is used in title www.naic.org/documents/committees_b_consumer_ XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter information_110603_ahip_bcbsa_consumer_ amends, and adds to the provisions of 100 of the Code, and is distinct from the term testing.pdf; http://www.naic.org/documents/ part A of title XXVII of the Public ‘‘health plan,’’ as used in other provisions of title committees_b_consumer_information_ Health Service Act (PHS Act) relating to I of the Affordable Care Act. The term ‘‘health plan’’ 101014_consumers_union.pdf (a more detailed group health plans and health insurance does not include self-insured group health plans. summary of which is accessible at: http:// 2 Code section 9815 incorporates the preemption prescriptionforchange.org/pdf/CU_Consumer_ issuers in the group and individual provisions of PHS Act section 2724. Prior to the Testing_Report_Dec_2010.pdf); and http:// markets. The term ‘‘group health plan’’ Affordable Care Act, there were no express www.naic.org/documents/committees_b_consumer_ includes both insured and self-insured preemption provisions in chapter 100 of the Code. information_110603_consumers_union_testing.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52444 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

and individuals and provided an documents were drafted by the NAIC documents as appropriate, taking into opportunity for non-member feedback. primarily for use by health insurance account public comments. The Departments have received issuers.6 2. Providing the SBC transmittals from the NAIC that include In general, the Departments have a recommended template for the SBC heard concerns about the potential Paragraph (a) of the proposed (with instructions and samples to be redundancies and additional cost regulations implements the general used in completing the template) and a associated with elements of the SBC disclosure requirement and sets forth recommended uniform glossary.4 requirement—including the uniform the proposed standards for who These regulations generally propose glossary and the coverage facts labels— provides an SBC, to whom, and when. standards for group health plans (and particularly for those plans and group PHS Act section 2715 generally sets their plan administrators), and health health insurance issuers that already forth that an SBC be provided to insurance issuers offering group or provide a Summary Plan Description applicants, enrollees, and policyholders individual health insurance coverage, (SPD) under 29 CFR 2520.104b–2. or certificate holders. PHS Act section that will govern who provides an SBC, Comments are solicited on whether the 2715(d)(3) places the responsibility to who receives an SBC, when the SBC SBC should be allowed to be provided provide an SBC on ‘‘(A) a health will be provided, and how it will be within an SPD if the SBC is intact and insurance issuer (including a group provided. The Departments invite prominently displayed at the beginning health plan that is not a self-insured comment on the standards of the of the SPD (for example, immediately plan) offering health insurance coverage proposed regulations. after a cover page and table of contents), within the United States; or (B) in the In conjunction with these proposed and if the timing requirements for case of a self-insured group health plan, regulations, the Departments are providing the SBC (described in the plan sponsor or designated publishing a document today that paragraph (a) of the proposed administrator of the plan (as such terms provides the proposed template for the regulations) are satisfied. The are defined in section 3(16) of SBC (with proposed instructions and Departments also welcome further ERISA).’’ 7 Accordingly, these proposed sample language for completing the comments on ways the SBC might be regulations would interpret PHS Act template) and the proposed uniform coordinated with other group health section 2715 to apply to both group glossary that are identical to the plan disclosure materials (e.g., health plans and health insurance documents that were developed and application and open season materials) issuers offering group or individual agreed to by the entire NAIC working to communicate effectively with health insurance coverage. In addition, group and then voted on and approved participants and beneficiaries about consistent with the statute, these by the full NAIC. Instead of proposing their coverage and make it easy for them proposed regulations would make a possible changes to the NAIC’s to compare coverage options while also plan administrator of a group health proposed SBC template and related avoiding undue cost or burden on plans plan responsible for providing an SBC. materials, the document published and group health insurance issuers. Under the proposed regulations, the today incorporates all of the NAIC SBC would be provided in writing free working group’s recommended Consistent with the goals of balancing effective communication and ease of of charge. materials (with the exception of a In general, the proposed rules direct 5 comparison for individuals with sample coverage example ) and invites that the SBC be provided when a plan public comment. The Departments minimization of cost and duplication, other sections of this preamble outline or individual is comparing health recognize that changes to the SBC coverage options. If the information in template may be appropriate to and invite comment on potential approaches to major elements of the the SBC changes between the time of accommodate various types of plan and application, when the coverage is coverage designs, to provide additional SBC—the statutorily-required uniform glossary and the coverage examples—in offered, and when a policy is issued information to individuals, or to (often the case only for individual improve the efficacy of the disclosures the interest of streamlining standards and making implementation of these market coverage), the proposal would recommended by the NAIC. In addition, require that an updated SBC be the SBC template and related components as helpful and user-friendly for individuals, and as workable and provided. If the information is unchanged, the SBC does not need to be 4 Information on the NAIC working group, efficient as possible. including drafts of SBC materials and other As discussed below, PHS Act section provided again, except upon request. supporting documents developed for compliance 2715 generally directs group health This general approach is explained with PHS Act section 2715, working group plans and health insurance issuers to more fully below. membership lists, and meeting minutes, is available at: http://www.naic.org/committees_b_consumer_ comply with the SBC requirements a. Provision of the SBC Automatically information.htm. beginning on or after March 23, 2012. by an Issuer to a Plan 5 The Appendices do not include a sample Comments are requested regarding coverage example calculation for breast cancer in factors that may affect the feasibility of Paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the proposed the individual market that was transmitted by the implementation within this time frame. regulations provides that a health NAIC. Upon review, it appeared that some of the insurance issuer offering group health data in the example might be subject to copyright After the public comment period on protection. Moreover, the sample coverage example these documents, the Departments will insurance coverage provide the SBC to provided by NAIC was limited to breast cancer in finalize the SBC template and a group health plan (including, for this the individual market and did not address the other instructions. Consistent with PHS Act purpose, its sponsor) upon an two coverage examples—maternity coverage and application or request for information diabetes. Finally, particular coding information and section 2715(c), the Departments will pricing information included in the sample would periodically review and update the change annually, which would result in the data 7 ERISA section 3(16) defines an administrator as: included in the sample becoming outdated (i) The person specifically designated by the terms relatively quickly. Accordingly, HHS is publishing 6 National Association of Insurance of the instrument under which the plan is operated; on its Web site (at http://cciio.cms.gov), the coding Commissioners, Consumer Information Working (ii) if an administrator is not so designated, the plan and pricing information necessary to perform Group, December 17, 2010 Letter to the Secretaries. sponsor; or (iii) in the case of a plan for which an coverage example calculations for all three coverage Available at http://www.naic.org/documents/ administrator is not designated and plan sponsor examples. HHS will update this information committees_b_consumer_information_ppaca_letter_ cannot be identified, such other person as the annually. to_sebelius.pdf. Secretary of Labor may by regulation prescribe.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52445

by the plan about the health coverage package offered for which the may need or desire the information (see section II.A.2.c. of this preamble, participant or beneficiary is eligible.9 provided in the SBC at times other than below, for a discussion of this proposal). The SBC must be provided as part of those set forth in the statute to ensure Under this proposal, the SBC must be any written application materials that that the plans and individuals have provided as soon as practicable are distributed by the plan or issuer for continuous access to coverage and cost following the request, but in no event enrollment. If the plan does not information to make informed choices later than seven days following the distribute written application materials about health coverage.11 In addition, request. If an SBC is provided upon for enrollment, the SBC must be while the ‘‘upon request’’ provision may request for information about health distributed no later than the first date result in some additional administrative coverage and the plan subsequently the participant is eligible to enroll in work for plans and issuers, the applies for health coverage, a second coverage for the participant and any Departments have used discretion SBC will be provided automatically beneficiaries. If there is any change to elsewhere in these proposed regulations only if the information in the SBC has the information required to be in the to create special rules for avoiding changed. If there is a change to the SBC before the first day of coverage, the duplication and also propose to reduce information in the SBC before the plan or issuer must update and provide burden by facilitating electronic coverage is offered, or before the first a current SBC to a participant or transmittal of the SBC, where day of coverage, the issuer must update beneficiary no later than the first day of appropriate. Accordingly, the and provide a current SBC to the plan coverage. Departments have sought to balance no later than the date of the offer (or no The plan or issuer must also provide providing consumer access to SBCs with later than the first day of coverage, as the SBC to special enrollees within minimizing burdens on employers and applicable). The Departments recognize seven days of a request for enrollment insurers. that often the only change to the SBC is pursuant to a special enrollment d. Special Rules To Prevent a final premium quote (usually in the period.10 Additionally, the plan or Unnecessary Duplication With Respect individual health insurance market or issuer must provide a new SBC if and to Group Health Coverage the small group market). The when the coverage is renewed. Departments request comments on Specifically, if written application The Departments propose, in whether, in such circumstances, materials are required for renewal (in paragraph (a)(1)(iii), three rules to premium information can be provided either paper or electronic form), the SBC streamline provision of the SBC and in another way that is easily must be provided no later than the date prevent unnecessary duplication with understandable and useful to plan the materials are distributed. If renewal respect to group health plan coverage. sponsors and individuals, other than by is automatic, the proposed rules provide First, the requirement to provide an SBC sending a new, full SBC. that the SBC must be provided no later will be considered satisfied for all An issuer also must provide a new than 30 days prior to the first day of entities if the SBC is provided by any SBC if and when the policy, certificate, coverage in the new plan year. entity, so long as all timing and content or contract (for simplicity, referred to requirements are also satisfied. For collectively as a ‘‘policy’’ in the c. Provision of the SBC Upon Request example, if a health insurance issuer remainder of this preamble) is renewed The regulations propose that a health offering group health insurance or reissued. In the case of renewal or insurance issuer offering group health coverage provides a complete, timely reissuance, if the issuer requires written insurance coverage provide the SBC to SBC to the plan’s participants and application materials for renewal (in a group health plan (and a plan or issuer beneficiaries, the plan’s requirement to either paper or electronic form), it must must provide the SBC to a participant or provide the SBC will be satisfied. provide the SBC no later than the date beneficiary) upon request, as soon as Second, if a participant and any the materials are distributed. If renewal practicable, but in no event later than beneficiaries are known to reside at the or reissuance is automatic, the SBC seven days following the request. same address, providing a single SBC to must be provided no later than 30 days Although PHS Act section 2715 does that address will satisfy the obligation to prior to the first day of the new policy not specifically reference furnishing provide the SBC for all individuals year. SBCs on request, PHS Act section residing at that address. However, if a 2715(a) authorizes the Departments to beneficiary’s last known address is b. Provision of the SBC Automatically develop standards for providing the SBC different than the participant’s last by a Plan or Issuer to Participants and to applicants, enrollees, policyholders, known address, a separate SBC must be Beneficiaries and certificate holders. The provided to the beneficiary at the Under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the Departments believe that this provision beneficiary’s last known address. proposed regulations, a group health recognizes that plans and individuals Finally, to further reduce unnecessary plan (including the plan administrator), duplication with respect to a group and a health insurance issuer offering 9 With respect to insured group health plan health plan that offers multiple benefit group health insurance coverage, must coverage, PHS Act section 2715 generally places the packages, in connection with renewal, provide an SBC to a participant or obligation to provide an SBC on both a plan and the plan and issuer only need to issuer. As discussed below, under section II.A.2.d., 8 automatically provide a new SBC with beneficiary with respect to each benefit ‘‘Special Rules to Prevent Unnecessary Duplication With Respect to Group Health Coverage’’, if either respect to the benefit package in which 8 ERISA section 3(7) defines a participant as: Any the issuer or the plan provides the SBC, both will a participant or beneficiary is enrolled. employee or former employee of an employer, or have satisfied their obligations. As they do with SBCs are not required to be provided any member or former member of an employee other notices required of both plans and issuers automatically with respect to benefit organization, who is or may become eligible to under Part 7 of ERISA, Title XXVII of the PHS Act, receive a benefit of any type from an employee and Chapter 100 of the Code, the Departments packages in which the participant or benefit plan which covers employees or members expect plans and issuers to make contractual of such organization, or whose beneficiaries may be arrangements for sending SBCs. Accordingly, the 11 Moreover, this provision is consistent with eligible to receive any such benefit. ERISA section remainder of this preamble generally refers to requirements under ERISA section 104(b)(4), which 3(8) defines a beneficiary as: A person designated requirements for plans or issuers. requires ERISA-covered group health plans to by a participant, or by the terms of an employee 10 Regulations regarding special enrollment can provide to participants and beneficiaries, upon benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a be found at 26 CFR 54.9801–6, 29 CFR 2590.701– request, copies of the instruments under which the benefit thereunder. 6, and 45 CFR 146.117. plan is established or operated.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52446 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

beneficiary is not enrolled. However, if individual at the individual’s last include these additional recommended a participant or beneficiary requests an known address. elements. The four additional elements SBC with respect to another benefit are: (1) For plans and issuers that 3. Content package for which the participant or maintain one or more networks of beneficiary is eligible, the SBC must be PHS Act section 2715(b)(3) generally providers, an Internet address (or provided as soon as practicable, but in provides that the SBC must include: similar contact information) for no event later than seven days following a. Uniform definitions of standard obtaining a list of the network the request. insurance terms and medical terms so providers; (2) for plans and issuers that that consumers may compare health maintain a prescription drug formulary, e. Provision of the SBC by an Issuer coverage and understand the terms of an Internet address where an individual Offering Individual Market Coverage (or exceptions to) their coverage; may find more information about the Under these regulations, the Secretary b. A description of the coverage, prescription drug coverage under the of HHS sets forth proposed standards including cost sharing, for each category plan or coverage; (3) an Internet address applicable to individual health of benefits identified by the where an individual may review and insurance coverage for who provides an Departments; obtain the uniform glossary; and (4) SBC, to whom, and when. The intent is c. The exceptions, reductions, and premiums (or cost of coverage for self- to parallel the proposed group market limitations on coverage; insured group health plans). requirements described above, with d. The cost-sharing provisions of the The Departments have included these only those changes necessary to reflect coverage, including deductible, elements in the proposed regulation the differences between the two coinsurance, and copayment consistent with the NAIC’s markets. For example, individual obligations; recommendations. PHS Act section policyholders and dependents in the e. The renewability and continuation 2715(a) requires the Departments to individual market are comparable to of coverage provisions; develop regulations for provision of an group health plan participants and f. A coverage facts label that includes SBC that accurately describes benefits beneficiaries. Accordingly, an issuer examples to illustrate common benefits and coverage, which includes the offering individual health insurance scenarios (including pregnancy and statutory content elements listed above, coverage must provide an SBC as soon serious or chronic medical conditions) but the Departments believe they are not as practicable after receiving a request and related cost sharing based on limited to them. The statute also for application or a request for recognized clinical practice guidelines; requires the Departments to consult information, but in no event later than g. A statement about whether the plan with the NAIC on the development of seven days after receipt of the request. provides minimum essential coverage as the standards for the SBC, which If an individual later applies for the defined under section 5000A(f) of the includes content. The Departments’ same policy, a second SBC is required Code, and whether the plan’s or proposal includes all of the NAIC’s to be provided only if the information coverage’s share of the total allowed recommendations, including the in the SBC has changed. costs of benefits provided under the additional content, and the Departments invite comments on this approach and An issuer that makes an offer of plan or coverage meets applicable the four additional SBC content coverage must provide an updated SBC requirements; h. A statement that the SBC is only a elements. For example, with respect to only if it has modified the terms of the requirement to include an Internet coverage for the individual (including as summary and that the plan document, policy, or certificate of insurance should address that may be used to obtain a a result of medical underwriting) that copy of the uniform glossary, the are required to be reflected in the SBC. be consulted to determine the governing contractual provisions of the coverage; Departments invite comments on Similarly, when an individual accepts whether the SBC also should disclose the offer of coverage, if any terms are and i. A contact number to call with the option to receive a paper copy of the modified before the first day of uniform glossary upon request. coverage, an updated SBC must again be questions and an Internet Web address where a copy of the actual individual The NAIC instructions provide that provided no later than the first day of the premium generally is the premium coverage. A health insurance issuer will coverage policy or group certificate of coverage can be reviewed and obtained. as charged by the issuer (which may be provide an SBC annually at renewal, no evidenced in a rate table attached to the later than 30 days before the start of the The proposed regulations generally SBC),12 or the cost of coverage in the new policy year, reflecting any changes parallel the content elements set forth in case of self-insured plans. The NAIC effective for the new policy year. the statute. As discussed above, the instructions further provide that, in the Finally, similar to the group health Departments are issuing a document case of a group health plan, a coverage rules, for individual health that proposes to use the NAIC’s participant or beneficiary should insurance coverage that covers more recommended SBC template and consult the employer for information than one individual (or an application instructions to satisfy the SBC content regarding the actual cost of coverage net for coverage that is being made for more and appearance requirements of PHS of any employer subsidy. This raises than one individual), if all those Act section 2715. issues regarding the ability to compare individuals are known to reside at the A few of the content elements premium or cost information between same address, a single SBC may be included in the NAIC’s coverage options. The Departments provided to that address. This single recommendations warrant further request comments regarding whether SBC will satisfy the requirement to explanation and discussion. The the SBC should include premium or provide the SBC for all individuals template developed by the NAIC cost information and if so, the extent to residing at that address. However, if an working group and transmitted to the which such information should reflect individual’s last known address is Departments includes four elements not different than the last known address of specified in the statute. Consistent with 12 See page 4 of the NAIC Draft Instruction Guide the individual requesting coverage, the the Departments’ approach of including for Group Policies (available at http://www.naic. org/documents/committees_b_consumer_ policyholder, or a dependent of either, all of the NAIC’s recommended information_hhs_dol_submission_1107_inst_ a separate SBC must be provided to that materials, the proposed regulations grp.pdf).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52447

the actual cost to an individual net of At the same time, these generic the NAIC recommendations. For the any employer contribution, as well as glossary definitions, alone, would not same reason, these proposed regulations the extent to which the cost information necessarily help consumers understand provide that the minimum essential should include costs for different tiers what terms mean under a given plan or coverage statement is not required to be of coverage (for example, self-only, policy, nor would they support in the SBC until the plan or coverage is family). The Departments also request meaningful comparison of coverage required to provide an SBC with respect comments on how this information can options under PHS Act section to coverage beginning on or after be provided in a way that allows 2715(b)(3)(A) because the generic terms January 1, 2014.16 individuals and plan sponsors to make used in the glossary are not plan- or Starting in 2014, certain individuals meaningful comparisons about the cost policy-specific and would not enable who purchase health insurance coverage of their coverage options. consumers to understand what the through the new Affordable Insurance With respect to the definitions, the terms actually mean in the context of a Exchanges (‘‘Exchanges’’) may be Departments propose to follow an specific contract. Therefore, in addition eligible for a premium tax credit to help approach consistent with the to the uniform glossary, the NAIC pay for the cost of that coverage. In recommendations received from the working group also developed a ‘‘Why general, individuals offered affordable NAIC.13 Specifically, PHS Act section this Matters’’ column for the draft SBC minimum essential coverage under an 2715(b)(3)(A) requires plans and issuers template (with instructions for plans employer-sponsored plan will not be to include in the SBC ‘‘uniform and issuers to use in completing the eligible to receive a premium tax credit. definitions’’ of common health SBC template).14 The instructions Correctly establishing whether an insurance terms that are consistent with specify how plans and issuers must employer is offering affordable the standards developed under section describe each coverage component in minimum essential coverage is 2715(g). PHS Act section 2715(g) directs the SBC. For example, the instructions important to individuals, employers, the Departments to ‘‘provide for the indicate what information must be and Exchanges and necessitates the development of standards for the provided about a plan’s out-of-pocket verification of certain information about definitions of terms used in health limit on cost sharing, including whether employer coverage, including the information in the minimum essential insurance coverage,’’ including copayments, out-of-network coverage statement. The Departments specified insurance-related terms and coinsurance, and deductibles are subject are exploring several reporting options medical terms, as well as other terms to this limit. under the Affordable Care Act and other the Departments determine are In the Departments’ proposal, the applicable statutory authorities 17 to important to define. ‘‘Why this Matters’’ column in the SBC template, together with the instructions determine how information about The NAIC working group adopted a employer-provided coverage can be two-part approach to the definitions. for completing this column, constitute the definitions required to be provided provided and verified in a manner that First, it drafted a consumer-friendly limits the burden on individuals, uniform glossary, which includes under PHS Act section 2715(b)(3)(A). This approach allows plans and issuers employers, and Exchanges. Because the definitions of health coverage statutory SBC elements include the terminology, to be provided in flexibility in how they design benefits and coverage features, but proposes that information in the minimum essential connection with the SBC. The NAIC’s coverage statement, the Departments uniform glossary provides simple, benefits and features be described in a consistent way so that individuals and invite comments on how employers general, descriptive definitions designed might provide this information to to help consumers understand terms employers will understand them and appreciate differences from one plan or employees and the Exchanges in a and concepts commonly used in health manner that minimizes duplication and coverage. For example, ‘‘out-of-pocket policy to the next. With respect to the element of the burden. The Departments also recognize limit’’ is defined in the NAIC’s uniform SBC regarding a statement about that some of the plan level information glossary as: whether a plan or coverage provides that is required to be provided in the The most you pay during a policy period minimum essential coverage (as defined SBC is also required to be provided (usually a year) before your health insurance under section 5000A(f) of the Code) and under section 6056 of the Code or plan begins to pay 100% of the allowed whether the plan’s or coverage’s share of (requiring employers to report to the IRS amount. This limit never includes your the total allowed costs of benefits specific information related to premium, balance-billed charges or health employer-sponsored health coverage care your health insurance or plan doesn’t provided under the plan or coverage cover. Some health insurance or plans don’t meets applicable minimum value requirements (minimum essential 16 The minimum essential coverage and count all of your co-payments, deductibles, minimum value requirements are part of a larger set 15 co-insurance payments, out-of-network coverage statement), because this of health coverage reforms that take effect on payments or other expenses toward this content is not relevant until other January 1, 2014. The Departments’ proposal limit. elements of the Affordable Care Act are recognizes this effective date and the need for additional guidance with respect to these In these proposed regulations, and as implemented, this statement is not in requirements and is consistent with the described more fully below under recommendation in the transmittal letter from the 14 National Association of Insurance NAIC. The NAIC will continue to work to develop section II.C. of this preamble under the Commissioners, Consumer Information Working a recommendation for this SBC requirement and heading ‘‘Uniform Glossary’’, the Group, December 17, 2010, Final Package of will submit it to the Departments at a later date. Departments propose that the NAIC Attachments. Available at http://www.naic.org/ 17 In addition to section 2715 of the PHS Act, uniform glossary be used to satisfy the documents/committees_b_consumer_information_ these authorities include, but are not limited to, _ _ requirements of PHS Act 2715(g). ppaca final materials.pdf. section 6056 of the Code, as added by section 1514 15 PHS Act section 2715(b)(3)(G) provides that of the Affordable Care Act (requiring employers to this statement must indicate whether the plan or report to the Internal Revenue Service specific 13 National Association of Insurance coverage (1) provides minimum essential coverage information related to employer-sponsored health Commissioners, Consumer Information Working (as defined under section 5000A(f) of the Code) and coverage provided to employees); and section 18B Group, December 17, 2010 Letter to the Secretaries. (2) ensures that the plan’s or coverage’s share of the of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as added by section Available at http://www.naic.org/documents/ total allowed costs of benefits provided under the 1512 of the Affordable Care Act (requiring committees_b_consumer_information_ppaca_letter_ plan or coverage is not less than 60 percent of such employers to disclose to employees information to_sebelius.pdf. costs. regarding Exchange coverage options).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52448 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

provided to employees) and are These proposed regulations provide desirable to permit plans and issuers to coordinating their efforts to determine that the Departments may identify up to input plan- or policy-specific how and whether the same data can be six coverage examples that may be information into a central Internet used for multiple purposes. To help required in an SBC. A maximum of six portal, such as the Federal health care develop a simple, efficient system for coverage examples was discussed by the reform Web site (http:// employers, the Treasury Department NAIC working group, so that consumers www.healthcare.gov), that would use and the IRS intend to request comments may easily read, understand, and the information to generate the coverage on employer information reporting compare how benefits are provided for examples for each plan or policy. The required under section 6056 of the different common medical conditions. examples would then be available on Code. In future years, the SBC may include the Internet portal for access by The last SBC content item that merits coverage examples in addition to the individuals. Alternatively, some have further discussion is the coverage facts three proposed now. The Departments suggested that plans and issuers might label. The statute requires that an SBC propose to limit the number of coverage provide individuals, in a convenient contain a ‘‘coverage facts label.’’ For examples to no more than six to limit format in the SBC, the several items of ease of reference, the regulations the burden on plans and issuers and to plan- or policy-specific information propose to use ‘‘coverage examples,’’ the ensure that there is adequate space in necessary to generate the coverage term recommended by the NAIC, in the SBC to present coverage examples in examples and a reference to the Internet place of the statutory term. As specified a manner that is easy to read and useful portal, so that individuals could input in the statute, the proposed regulations for individuals. A document published the information into the Internet portal provide that the coverage examples contemporaneously with these proposed to generate the coverage examples for illustrate benefits provided under the regulations adopts a phase-in approach the plan or policy. The Departments plan or coverage for common benefits to the coverage examples, and uses the note that the NAIC considered and scenarios, including pregnancy and three coverage examples recommended rejected the idea of a ‘‘cost calculator’’ serious or chronic medical conditions. by NAIC for inclusion first—having a or similar tool. The Departments solicit The coverage example would estimate baby (normal delivery), treating breast comments on the cost and benefits of what proportion of expenses under an cancer, and managing diabetes.20 these alternatives, including whether illustrative benefits scenario might be The Departments invite comments on such approaches would provide an covered by a given plan or policy. the proposed coverage examples, efficient and effective method for Consumers then could use this whether additional benefits scenarios individuals, plans, and issuers to information to compare their share of would be helpful and, if so, what those generate or access the coverage the costs of care under different plan or examples should be. The Departments examples and how any such approaches coverage options to make an informed also invite comments on the benefits could adequately serve individuals who purchasing decision. and costs associated with developing do not have regular access to the Under the proposed regulations, multiple coverage examples, as well as Internet (for example, by disclosing in consistent with the recommendations of how multiple coverage examples might the SBC the option to obtain paper the NAIC working group, a benefits promote or hinder the ability to copies of coverage examples generated scenario is a hypothetical situation, understand and compare terms of by the plan or issuer). coverage. It is anticipated that any consisting of a sample treatment plan 4. Appearance for a specified medical condition during additional coverage examples will only a specific period of time, based on be required to be provided Section 2715 of the PHS Act sets forth recognized clinical practice guidelines prospectively, and that plans and the appearance for the SBC. available through the National issuers will be provided with adequate Specifically, the statute provides that Guideline Clearinghouse.18 A benefits time for compliance. Additionally, the the SBC is to be presented in a uniform scenario would include the information Departments invite comments on format, utilizing terminology needed to simulate how claims would whether and how to phase in the understandable by the average plan be processed under the scenario to implementation of the requirement to enrollee, that does not exceed four pages generate an estimate of cost sharing a provide coverage examples. For in length, and does not include print consumer could expect to pay under the example, one option would provide that smaller than 12-point font. The benefit package. The document in 2012, coverage examples would only proposed regulations, consistent with published contemporaneously with need to be provided for the SBCs with the NAIC recommendation, interpret the these proposed regulations includes respect to a subset of all benefits four-page limitation as four double- 21 specific instructions and an HHS Web packages offered by group health plans sided pages. The Departments’ view is site with specific information necessary or health insurance issuers, with that this approach will enable group to simulate benefits covered under the coverage examples required to be health plans, participants and plan or policy for specified benefits provided for all benefits packages in beneficiaries, and individuals in the scenarios.19 later years. Comments are invited on individual insurance market to receive these issues. enough information to shop for, Comments are also requested on 18 The National Guideline Clearinghouse, within compare, and make informed decisions the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality whether it would be feasible or (AHRQ), publishes systematically developed 21 PHS Act section 2715(b)(1) does not prescribe statements to assist practitioner and patient Web site comprise the Departments’ instructions for whether the four pages are four single-sided pages decisions about appropriate health care for specific completing the coverage examples portion of the or four double-sided pages. The SBC template clinical circumstances, available at http:// SBC. See http://cciio.cms.gov. http://www.naic.org/ transmitted by NAIC exceeded four single-sided www.guideline.gov/. documents/committees_b_consumer_information_ pages. After considering the extent of statutorily- 19 A general instruction guide for completing the hhs_dol_submission_1107_template_blank.xls. The required content in PHS Act section 2715(b)(3), as coverage examples portion of the SBC, which is coding and reimbursement rate assumptions were well as the appearance and language requirements identical to that transmitted by the NAIC, is developed by HHS and are also open for public of PHS Act sections 2715(b)(1) and (2), the included in the document published today by the comment. Departments are interpreting four pages to be four Departments. These instructions, together with 20 See http://www.naic.org/documents/ double-sided pages, in order to ensure that this specific assumptions for coding data and committees_b_consumer_information_final_ information is presented in an understandable and reimbursement rates published today on HHS’s coverage_ex.pdf. meaningful way.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52449

regarding various coverage options that With respect to an SBC provided by • Request that an individual may be available to them.22 The an issuer to a plan, the SBC may be acknowledge receipt of the SBC; Departments seek comments on this provided in paper form or electronically • Make the SBC available in an approach. (such as e-mail transmittal or an Internet electronic format that is readily usable Consistent with the NAIC posting on the issuer’s Web site or on by the general public; recommendations provided to the http://www.healthcare.gov). For • If the SBC is posted on the Internet, Departments,23 under these proposed electronic forms, the format must be display the SBC in a location that is regulations, a group health plan or a readily accessible by the plan; the SBC prominent and readily accessible to the health insurance issuer will provide the must be provided in paper form free of individual and provide timely notice, in SBC as a stand-alone document in the charge upon request; and for Internet electronic or non-electronic form, to form authorized by the Departments and postings, the plan must be notified by each individual who requests completed in accordance with the paper or e-mail that the documents are information about, or an application for, instructions and guidance for available on the Internet, and given the coverage, that apprises the individual completing the SBC that are authorized Web address. The Departments invite the SBC is available on the Internet and by the Departments. As noted earlier in comments on whether any clarifications includes the applicable Internet address; this preamble, comments are invited on are needed with respect to the ‘‘readily • Promptly provide a paper copy of whether and how the SBC might best be accessible’’ standard (for example, the SBC upon request without charge, coordinated with the SPD and other whether the requirements for passwords penalty, or the imposition of any other group health plan disclosure materials. or special software create a sufficient condition or consequence, and provide burden that the documents are not the individual with the ability to request 5. Form and Manner ‘‘readily accessible’’). The Departments a paper copy of the SBC both by using a. Group Health Plan Coverage also invite comment on whether the issuer’s Web site (such as by modifications or adaptations of the SBC To facilitate faster and less clicking on a clearly identified box to are necessary to facilitate or improve burdensome disclosure of the SBC, and make the request) and by calling a electronic disclosure. consistent with PHS Act section readily available telephone line, the 2715(d)(2), the proposed regulations set b. Individual Health Insurance Coverage number for which is prominently displayed on the issuer’s Web site, forth rules to facilitate electronic With respect to the individual market, transmittal of the SBC, where policy documents, and other marketing the proposed regulations set forth the materials related to the policy and appropriate. Specifically, an SBC circumstances in which an issuer provided by a plan or issuer to a clearly identified as to purpose; and offering individual health insurance • Ensure an SBC provided in participant or beneficiary may be coverage may provide an SBC in either provided in paper form. Alternatively, electronic form is provided in paper or electronic form. Specifically, accordance with the appearance, for plans and issuers subject to ERISA under these proposed regulations, or the Code, the SBC may be provided content, and language requirements of unless specified otherwise by an this section. electronically if the requirements of the individual, an issuer would be required Department of Labor’s electronic to provide an SBC (and any subsequent The Departments welcome comments as disclosure safe harbor at 29 CFR SBC) in paper form if, upon the to whether these or other safeguards are 2520.104b–1(c) are met.24 For non- individual’s request for information or appropriate. Federal governmental plans, the request for an application, the Finally, consistent with the standards regulations propose that the SBC may be individual makes the request in person, for electronic disclosure, these proposed provided electronically if either the by phone or by fax, or by U.S. mail or regulations seek to reduce the burden of substance of the provisions of the courier service; or if, when submitting providing an SBC to individuals Department of Labor’s electronic an application, the individual completes shopping for coverage. Specifically, disclosure rule are met, or if the the application for coverage by hand, by these proposed regulations provide that provisions governing electronic phone or by fax, or by U.S. mail or a health insurance issuer that complies disclosure in the individual health courier service. As an alternative, the with the requirements set forth at 45 insurance market (described below) are Departments seek comments on whether CFR 159.120 (75 FR 24470) for reporting met. it might be appropriate to allow issuers to the Federal health care reform to fulfill an individual’s request in insurance Web portal would be deemed 22 PHS Act sections 2715(b)(3)(A) and (g)(2) electronic form, unless the individual to comply with the requirement to clearly reference consumers comparing coverage requests a paper form. provide the SBC to an individual and PHS Act section 2715(b)(1) requires a uniform Under this proposed rule, an issuer requesting information about coverage format, to enable shopping and comparing health coverage options. may provide an SBC (and any prior to submitting an application. Any 23 National Association of Insurance subsequent SBC) in electronic form SBC furnished at the time of application Commissioners, Consumer Information Working (such as through an Internet posting or or subsequently, however, would be Group, December 17, 2010 Letter to the Secretaries. via electronic mail) if an individual required to be provided in a form and Available at http://www.naic.org/documents/ requests information or requests an committees_b_consumer_information_ppaca_letter_ manner consistent with the rules to_sebelius.pdf. application for coverage electronically; described above. 24 or, if an individual submits an On April 7, 2011, the Department of Labor 6. Language published a Request for Information regarding application for coverage electronically. electronic disclosure at 76 FR 19285. In it, the To ensure actual receipt of an SBC PHS Act section 2715(b)(2) provides Department of Labor stated that it is reviewing the use of electronic media by employee benefit plans provided in electronic form, these that standards shall ensure that the SBC to furnish information to participants and proposed regulations would set forth ‘‘is presented in a culturally and beneficiaries covered by employee benefit plans certain safeguards for electronic linguistically appropriate manner.’’ subject to ERISA. Because these regulations adopt disclosure in the individual market. These proposed regulations provide the ERISA electronic disclosure rules by cross- that, to satisfy the requirement to reference, any changes that may be made to 29 CFR Under the proposed regulations, an 2520.104b–1 in the future would also apply to the issuer that provides the SBC provide the SBC in a culturally and SBC. electronically must: linguistically appropriate manner, a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52450 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

plan or issuer follows the rules for a material modification that would health plans subject to PHS Act section providing appeals notices in a culturally affect the content of the SBC would 2715, this notice is in advance of the and linguistically appropriate manner require plans and issuers to provide this timing under the Department of Labor’s under PHS Act section 2719, and notice. In these circumstances, the regulations set forth at 29 CFR paragraph (e) of its implementing notice must be provided to enrollees (or, 2520.104b-3 that require the provision regulations.25 In general, those rules in the individual market, policyholders) of a summary of material modification provide that, in specified counties of the no later than 60 days prior to the date (SMM) (generally not later than 210 United States, plans and issuers must on which such change will become days after the close of the plan year in provide interpretive services, and must effective, if it is not reflected in the most which the modification or change was provide written translations of the SBC recent SBC provided and occurs other adopted, or, in the case of a material upon request in certain non-English than in connection with a renewal or reduction in covered services or languages. In addition, in such counties, reissuance of coverage. A material benefits, not later than 60 days after the English versions of the SBC must modification, within the meaning of date of adoption of the modification or disclose the availability of language section 102 of ERISA, includes any change). In situations where a complete services in the relevant language.26 The modification to the coverage offered notice is provided in a timely manner counties in which this must be done are under a plan or policy that, under PHS Act section 2715(d)(4), of those in which at least ten percent of the independently, or in conjunction with course, an ERISA-covered plan will also population residing in the county is other contemporaneous modifications or satisfy the requirement to provide an literate only in the same non-English changes, would be considered by an SMM under Part 1 of ERISA. The language, as determined in guidance. average plan participant (or in the case Departments invite comments on this The Departments welcome comments of individual market coverage, an expedited notice requirement, including on whether and how to provide written average individual covered under a whether there are any circumstances translations of the SBC in these non- policy) to be an important change in where 60-day advance notice might be English languages. (Note, nothing in covered benefits or other terms of difficult. The Departments also solicit these proposed regulations should be coverage under the plan or policy.27 A comments on the format of the notice of construed as limiting an individual’s material modification could be an modification, particularly for plans and rights under Federal or State civil rights enhancement of covered benefits or issuers not subject to ERISA. statutes, such as Title VI of the Civil services or other more generous plan or C. Uniform Glossary Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) which policy terms. It includes, for example, prohibits recipients of Federal financial coverage of previously excluded Section 2715(g)(2) of the PHS Act assistance, including issuers benefits or reduced cost-sharing. A directs the Departments to develop participating in Medicare Advantage, material modification could also be a standards for definitions for at least the from discriminating on the basis of race, material reduction in covered services following insurance-related terms: co- color, or national origin. To ensure non- or benefits, as defined in 29 CFR insurance, co-payment, deductible, discrimination on the basis of national 2520.104b–3(d)(3), or more stringent excluded services, grievance and appeals, non-preferred provider, out-of- origin, recipients are required to take requirements for receipt of benefits. As network co-payments, out-of-pocket reasonable steps to ensure meaningful a result, it also includes changes or limit, preferred provider, premium, and access to their programs and activities modifications that reduce or eliminate UCR (usual, customary and reasonable) by limited English proficient persons. benefits, increase premiums and cost- fees. Section 2715(g)(3) of the PHS Act For more information, see, ‘‘Guidance to sharing, or impose a new referral directs the Departments to develop Federal Financial Assistance Recipients requirement. Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against PHS Act section 2715 and these standards for definitions for at least the National Origin Discrimination proposed regulations describe the following medical terms: durable medical equipment, emergency medical Affecting Limited English Proficient timing for when a notice of material transportation, emergency room care, Persons,’’ available at http:// modification must be provided in home health care, hospice services, www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/ situations other than upon renewal at hospital outpatient care, hospitalization, specialtopics/lep/ the end of a plan or policy year when physician services, prescription drug policyguidancedocument.html.) a new SBC is provided under the rules coverage, rehabilitation services, and of paragraph (a) of the proposed rules. B. Notice of Modifications skilled nursing care. Additionally, the To the extent a plan or policy Section 2715(d)(4) of the PHS Act statute directs the Departments to implements a mid-year change that is a directs that a group health plan or develop standards for such other terms material modification, that affects the health insurance issuer offering group or that will help consumers understand content of the SBC, and that occurs individual health insurance coverage to and compare the terms of coverage and other than in connection with a renewal provide notice of a material the extent of medical benefits (including or reissuance of coverage, paragraph (b) modification if it makes a material any exceptions and limitations). modification (as defined under ERISA of the proposed regulations would The NAIC working group section 102, 29 U.S.C. 1022) in any of require a notice of modifications to be recommended,28 and the Departments the terms of the plan or coverage provided 60 days in advance of the are proposing to adopt for this purpose, involved that is not reflected in the most effective date of the change. This notice inclusion of the following additional recently provided SBC. The proposed could be satisfied either by a separate terms in the uniform glossary: allowed regulations interpret the statutory notice describing the material amount, balance billing, complications reference to the SBC to mean that only modification or by providing an of pregnancy, emergency medical updated SBC reflecting the 25 See 75 FR 43330 (July 23, 2010), as amended modification. For ERISA-covered group 28 National Association of Insurance by 76 FR 37208 (June 24, 2011). Commissioners, Consumer Information Working 26 The SBC template, as recommended by the 27 See DOL Information Letter, Washington Star/ Group, December 17, 2010 Letter to the Secretaries. NAIC, does not include this statement; however, Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild to Available at http://www.naic.org/documents/ these proposed regulations would require that plans Munford Page Hall, II, Baker & McKenzie (February committees_b_consumer_information_ppaca_letter_ and issuers include it. 8, 1985). to_sebelius.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52451

condition, emergency services, section 731 and PHS Act section 2724 the new penalty may vary slightly, as habilitation services, health insurance, (implemented in 29 CFR 2590.731(a) discussed below. in-network co-insurance, in-network co- and 45 CFR 146.143(a)). These 1. Department of HHS payment, medically necessary, network, provisions apply so that the out-of-network co-insurance, plan, requirements of part 7 of ERISA and Enforcement of Part A of Title XXVII preauthorization, prescription drugs, part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act, as of the PHS Act, including section 2715, primary care physician, primary care amended by the Affordable Care Act, are is generally governed by PHS Act provider, provider, reconstructive not to be ‘‘construed to supersede any section 2723 and corresponding surgery, specialist, and urgent care. The provision of State law which regulations at 45 CFR 150.101 et seq. uniform glossary proposed by the establishes, implements, or continues in Under those provisions, a State has the Departments is being issued in a effect any standard or requirement discretion to enforce the provisions document published elsewhere in solely relating to health insurance against health insurance issuers in the today’s Federal Register. issuers in connection with group or first instance, and the Secretary of HHS The Departments invite comments on individual health insurance coverage only enforces a provision after the the uniform glossary, including the except to the extent that such standard Secretary determines that a State has content of the definitions and whether or requirement prevents the application failed to substantially enforce the there are additional terms that are of a requirement’’ of part A of title provision. If a State enforces a provision important to include in the uniform XXVII of the PHS Act. Accordingly, such as PHS Act section 2715, it uses its glossary so that individuals and State laws that impose on health own enforcement mechanisms. If the employers may understand and insurance issuers requirements that are Secretary enforces, the statute provides compare the terms of coverage and the stricter than those imposed by the for penalties of up to $100 per day for extent of medical benefits (or exceptions Affordable Care Act will not be each affected individual. to those benefits). For example, the superseded by the Affordable Care Act. PHS Act section 2715(f) provides that Departments are considering whether Moreover, PHS Act section 2715(e) an entity that willfully fails to provide glossary definitions of any of the provides that the standards developed the information required under PHS Act following terms would be helpful: under PHS Act section 2715(a), ‘‘shall section 2715 shall be subject to a fine of claim, external review, maternity care, preempt any related State standards that not more than $1,000 for each such preexisting condition, preexisting require [an SBC] that provides less failure. Such failure with respect to each condition exclusion period, or specialty information to consumers than that enrollee constitutes a separate offense. drug. It is anticipated that any required to be provided under this This penalty can only be imposed by the additional terms would be included in section, as determined by the Secretary. the uniform glossary prospectively, and [Departments].’’ Paragraph (e) of the regulations that plans and issuers would be Reading these two preemption proposed by HHS clarifies that States provided adequate time for compliance. provisions together, these proposed have primary enforcement authority The proposed regulations direct a regulations would not prevent States over health insurance issuers for any plan or issuer to make the uniform from imposing separate, additional violations, whether willful or not, using glossary available upon request within disclosure requirements on health their own remedies. These proposed seven days. The timing of disclosure is insurance issuers. The Departments regulations also clarify that PHS Act intended to be generally consistent with recognize the need to balance States’ section 2715 does not limit the the proposed requirement, described in interest in information disclosure Secretary’s authority to impose section II.A.2.c of this preamble. A plan regarding insurance coverage with the penalties for willful violations or issuer may satisfy this disclosure primary objective of PHS Act section regardless of State enforcement. requirement by providing an Internet 2715 (as stated in the section title) of However, the Secretary intends to use address where an individual may providing for the development and use enforcement discretion if the Secretary review and obtain the uniform glossary, of a short, uniform explanation of determines that the State is adequately as described in section II.A.3 of this coverage document so that consumers addressing willful violations. preamble. This Internet address may be may make apples-to-apples comparisons The Secretary of HHS has direct a place the document can be found on of plan and coverage options. enforcement authority for violations by the plan’s or issuer’s Web site. It may non-Federal governmental plans, and E. Failure To Provide also be a place the document can be will use the appropriate penalty for found on the Web site of either the PHS Act section 2715(f), incorporated violations of section 2715, depending on Department of Labor or HHS. However, into ERISA section 715 and Code whether the violation is willful. a plan or issuer must make a paper copy section 9815, provides that a group Proposed paragraph (e) of the HHS of the glossary available upon request. health plan (including its regulations cross references the Group health plans and health administrator), and a health insurance enforcement regulations at 45 CFR insurance issuers will provide the issuer offering group or individual 150.101 et seq., and states that they uniform glossary in the appearance health insurance coverage, that relate to any failure, regardless of intent, authorized by the Departments, so that ‘‘willfully fails to provide the by a health insurance issuer or non- the glossary is presented in a uniform information required under this section Federal governmental plan, to comply format and uses terminology shall be subject to a fine of not more with any requirement of section 2715 of understandable by the average plan than $1,000 for each such failure.’’ In the PHS Act. enrollee or individual covered under an addition, under PHS Act section 2715(f), 2. Departments of Labor and the individual policy. a separate fine may be imposed for each individual or entity for whom there is Treasury D. Preemption a failure to provide an SBC. Due to the The Department of Labor enforces the Section 2715 of the PHS Act is different enforcement jurisdictions of requirements of part 7 of ERISA and the incorporated into ERISA section 715, the Departments, as well as their Department of the Treasury enforces the and Code section 9815, and is subject to different underlying enforcement requirements of chapter 100 of the Code the preemption provisions of ERISA structures, the mechanisms for imposing with respect to group health plans

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52452 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

maintained by an entity that is not a administrator to a fine of not more than are necessary to accommodate governmental entity. Generally the $1,000 for each failure to provide an expatriate plans. The Departments note enforcement authority under these SBC. Unless and until future guidance that, in the context of group health plan provisions applies to all provides otherwise, group health plans coverage, section 4(b)(4) of ERISA nongovernmental group health plans, subject to chapter 100 of the Code provides that a plan maintained outside but the Department of Labor does not should continue to report the excise tax the United States primarily for the enforce the requirements of part 7 of of section 4980D on IRS Form 8928 with benefit of persons substantially all of ERISA with respect to church plans. respect to failures to comply with PHS whom are nonresident aliens is exempt On April 21, 1999, pursuant to section Act section 2715. The Secretaries of from ERISA title I, including ERISA 104 of the Health Insurance Portability Labor and the Treasury will coordinate section 715. At the same time, in the and Accountability Act of 1996 to determine appropriate cases in which Department of HHS’s interim final (HIPAA), Public Law 104–191, the the fine of section 2715(f) should be regulations relating to medical loss ratio Secretaries entered into a memorandum imposed on group health plans that are (MLR) provisions published at 75 FR of understanding 29 that, among other not maintained by a governmental 74864, a special rule was included for things, established a mechanism for entity. expatriate insurance policies. The coordinating enforcement and avoiding Departments invite comments on F. Applicability duplication of effort for shared whether any adjustments are needed jurisdiction. The memorandum of PHS Act section 2715 directs that the under PHS Act section 2715 for understanding applies, as appropriate, requirement for group health plans and expatriate plans and, if so, for what to health legislation enacted after April health insurance issuers to provide an types of coverage. 21, 1999 over which at least two of the SBC ‘‘prior to any enrollment Departments share jurisdiction, restriction’’ applies not later than 24 III. Economic Impact and Paperwork including section 2715 of the PHS Act months after the date of enactment (i.e., Burden as incorporated into ERISA and the beginning on or after March 23, 2012).30 A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563— Code. Therefore, in enforcing PHS Act As noted earlier, the statute also directs Department of Labor and Department of section 2715, the Departments of Labor the Departments to consult with the Health and Human Services and the Treasury will coordinate to NAIC in developing the SBC standards. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 avoid duplication in the case of group The Departments are appreciative of the direct agencies to assess all costs and health plans that are not church plans detailed and valuable work the NAIC benefits of available regulatory and that are not maintained by a and its working group has performed in alternatives and, if regulation is governmental entity. developing recommended standards and necessary, to select regulatory materials, including the NAIC’s a. Department of Labor approaches that maximize net benefits extensive efforts to involve numerous (including potential economic, The Department of Labor will issue stakeholder groups in that process for environmental, public health and safety separate regulations in the future over a year and to provide drafts of its effects; distributive impacts; and describing the procedures for evolving materials to the Departments equity). Executive Order 13563 assessment of the civil fine provided periodically. Accordingly, as noted, the emphasizes the importance of under PHS Act section 2715(f) as Departments are appending to the quantifying both costs and benefits, of incorporated by section 715 of ERISA. document accompanying these reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, In accordance with ERISA 502(b)(3), 29 proposed regulations the NAIC’s SBC and of promoting flexibility. This rule U.S.C. 1132(b)(3), the Secretary of Labor work product for public comment. has been designated a ‘‘significant is not authorized to assess this fine The NAIC transmitted its final regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of against a health insurance issuer. materials to the Departments on July 29, Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 2011. In recognition of existing b. Department of the Treasury the rule has been reviewed by the Office disclosure requirements under 29 CFR If a group health plan (other than a of Management and Budget. plan maintained by a governmental 2520.104b–2 for those group health A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) entity) fails to comply with the plans that already provide SPDs to must be prepared for major rules with requirements of chapter 100 of the Code, participants and concerns raised about economically significant effects ($100 an excise tax is imposed under section providing SBCs by the statutory million or more in any 1 year). As 4980D of the Code. The excise tax is deadline, comments are solicited on discussed below, the Departments have generally $100 per day per individual whether and, if so, how practical concluded that these proposed for each day that the plan fails to considerations might affect the timing of regulations would not have economic comply with chapter 100 with respect to implementation. In coordination with impacts of $100 million or more in any that individual. Numerous rules under the request for comment elsewhere in one year or otherwise meet the section 4980D reduce the amount of the this preamble on a potential phase-in of definition of an ‘‘economically excise tax for failures due to reasonable the implementation of the requirement significant rule’’ under Executive Order cause and not to willful neglect. Special to provide coverage examples, 12866. Nonetheless, consistent with rules apply for church plans. Taxpayers comments are invited also on how any Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the subject to the excise tax under section potential phase-in of those requirements Departments have provided an 4980D are required to report the failures could or should be coordinated with the assessment of the potential benefits and under chapter 100 and the amount of timing of the effectiveness of the general the costs associated with this proposed the excise tax on IRS Form 8928. See 26 SBC standards. regulation. The Departments invite CFR 54.4980D–1, 54.6011–2, and The Departments also request comment on this assessment. 54.6151–1. comments on whether any special rules Section 2715(f) of the PHS Act 1. Current Regulatory Framework 30 Section 2715 is applicable to both subjects a plan sponsor or designated grandfathered and non-grandfathered health plans. Health plan sponsors and issuers do See 26 CFR 54.9815–1251(d), 29 CFR 2590.715– not currently uniformly disclose 29 See 64 FR 70164 (December 15, 1999). 1251(d), and 45 CFR 147.120(d). information to consumers about benefits

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52453

and coverage in a simple and consistent requirements only extend to managed Given this difficulty in obtaining way. ERISA-covered group health plan care organizations, and not to other relevant information, consumers may sponsors are required to describe segments of the market.38 not always make informed purchase important plan information concerning decisions that best meet the health and 2. Need for Regulatory Action eligibility, benefits, and participant financial needs of themselves, their rights and responsibilities in a summary Congress added new PHS Act section families, or their employees. Similarly, plan description (SPD). But as these 2715 through the Affordable Care Act to workers may overestimate or documents have increased in size and ensure that plans and issuers provide underestimate the value of employer- complexity—for example, due to the benefits and coverage information in a sponsored health benefits, and thus insertion of more legalistic language that more uniform format that helps their total compensation; and health is designed to mitigate the employer’s consumers to better understand their insurance issuers and employers may risk of litigation—they have become coverage and better compare coverage face less pressure to compete on price, more difficult for participants and options. These proposed regulations are benefits, and quality, leading to beneficiaries to understand.31 Indeed, a necessary to provide standards for a inefficiency in the health insurance and recent analysis of SPDs from 40 summary of benefits and coverage and labor markets. employer health plans from across the a uniform glossary of terms used in Furthermore, research suggests that United States (varying based on health coverage. This approach is many consumers do not understand geography, firm size, and industry consistent with Executive Order 13563, how health insurance works. sector) found that, on average, SPDs are which directs agencies to ‘‘identify and Oftentimes, health insurance contracts generally written at a first year college consider regulatory approaches that and benefit descriptions are written in reading level (with readability ranging reduce burdens and maintain flexibility technical language that requires a from 9th grade reading level to nearly a and freedom of choice for the public. sophisticated level of health insurance college graduate reading level).32 These approaches include [* * *] literacy many people do not have.41 One Moreover, the formats of existing SPDs disclosure requirements as well as study found that consumers have are not standardized; for example, while provision of information to the public in particular difficulty understanding cost these documents could be dozens of a form that is clear and intelligible.’’ sharing and tend to underestimate their pages long, there is no requirement that The patchwork of consumer coverage for mental health, substance they include an executive summary. disclosure requirements makes the abuse and prescription drug benefits, Additionally, group health plans not process of shopping for coverage an while overestimating their coverage for covered by ERISA, such as plans inefficient, difficult, and time- long-term care.42 consuming task. Consumers incur sponsored by State and local 3. Summary of Impacts governments, are not required to comply significant search costs while trying to Table 1 below depicts an accounting with such disclosure requirements. locate reliable cost, coverage and benefit In the individual market, health data.39 Such search costs arise, in part, statement summarizing the insurance issuers are subject to various, due to a lack of uniform information Departments’ assessment of potential diverse State disclosure laws. For across the various coverage options, benefits, costs, and transfers associated with this regulatory action. The example, States like Massachusetts,33 particularly in the individual market but Departments have limited the period New York,34 Rhode Island,35 Utah 36 also in some large employer plans. covered by the RIA to 2011–2013. and Vermont 37 have established Although not directly comparable, in Estimates are not provided for minimum standards for disclosure of Medigap, a market with standardized subsequent years, because there will be health insurance information but even benefits, the average per beneficiary significant changes in the marketplace within such States, consumer search cost was estimated at $72—far in 2014 related to the offering of new disclosures vary widely with respect to higher than in other insurance markets, individual and small group plans their required content. Additionally, such as auto insurance.40 through the Affordable Insurance some State disclosure laws are limited 38 Exchanges, and the wide-ranging scope to current enrollees, so that individuals For example, New York requires Health of these changes makes it difficult to shopping for coverage do not receive Maintenance Organizations to provide to prospective members, as well as policyholders, project results for 2014 and beyond. information about health insurance information on cost-sharing, including out-of- The direct benefits of these proposed coverage options. Other State disclosure network costs, limitations and exclusions on benefits, prior authorization requirements, and regulations come from improved other disclosures such as appeal rights. NY Ins. Law information, which will enable 31 ERISA Advisory Council. Report of the § 3217–a (2010). Utah requires each insurer issuing consumers to better understand the Working Group on Health and Welfare Benefit a health benefit plan to provide all enrollees, prior Plans’ Communication. November 2005. Available coverage they have and allow to enrollment in the health benefit plan, written at: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/ consumers choosing coverage to more disclosure of restrictions or limitations on AC_1105c_report.html. prescription drugs and biologics, coverage limits easily compare coverage options. As a 32 ‘‘How Readable Are Summary Plan under the plan, and any limitation or exclusion of result, consumers may make better Descriptions For Health Care Plans?’’ Employee coverage. Utah Code § 31A–22–613.5 (2010). Rhode coverage decisions, which more closely Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) Notes. October Island requires all health insurance forms to meet 2006, Vol. 27, No. 10. Available at: http:// match their preferences with respect to _ _ minimum readability standards. Office of the www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI Notes 10- Health Insurance Commissioner Regulation 5: benefit design, level of financial 20061.pdf. Standards for Readability of Health Insurance protection, and cost. The Departments 33 M.G.L.A. 176Q § 5 (2010). Forms, State of Rhode Island and Providence 34 NY Ins. Law § 3217–a (2010). Plantations, August 21, 2010. 41 For example, as discussed earlier, the average 35 Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner 39 M. Susan Marquis et al., ‘‘Consumer Decision Summary Plan Description is written at a first-year Regulation 5: Standards for Readability of Health Making in the Individual Health Insurance Market,’’ college reading level. See Employee Benefit Insurance Forms, State of Rhode Island and 25 Health Affairs w.226, w.231-w.232 (May 2006). Research Institute, October 2006. Providence Plantations, August 21, 2010. Available at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/ 42 D.W. Garnick, A.M. Hendricks, K.E. Thorpe, 36 Utah Code § 31A–22–613.5 (2010). content/25/3/w226.full.pdf+html. J.P. Newhouse, K. Donelan and R.J. Blendon. ‘‘How 37 Division of Health Care Administration, Rule 40 Nicole Maestas et al., ‘‘Price Variation in well do Americans understand their health 10.000: Quality Assurance Standards and Consumer Markets with Homogenous Goods: The Case of coverage?’’ Health Affairs, 12(3). 1993:204–12. Protections for Managed Care Plans, State of Medigap,’’ National Bureau of Economic Research Available at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/ Vermont, September 20, 1997. (January 2009). content/12/3/204.full.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

believe that such improvements will coverage examples (CEs)) and a uniform them if, for example, economies of scale result in a more efficient, competitive glossary of health coverage and medical are achievable. market. These proposed regulations terms. The Departments estimate that The Departments anticipate that the would also benefit consumers by the annualized cost may be around $50 provisions of these proposed regulations million, although there is uncertainty reducing the time they spend searching will help consumers make better health for and compiling health plan and arising from general data limitations and coverage choices and more easily coverage information. the degree to which economies of scale Under the proposed regulations, exist for disclosing this information. understand their coverage. In group health plans and health insurance The costs estimates employ assumptions accordance with Executive Orders issuers would incur costs to compile that we believe fully capture expected 12866 and 13563, the Departments and provide the summary of benefits issuer and third-party administrator believe that the benefits of this and coverage disclosures (that includes (TPA) costs, and perhaps overestimate regulatory action justify the costs.

TABLE 1—ACCOUNTING TABLE

Benefits

Qualitative: Improved information will enable consumers to more easily and efficiently understand and compare coverage, and as a result, make better choices.

Costs Estimate Year dollar Discount rate Period covered percent

Annualized ...... $51 2011 7 2011–2013 Monetized ($ millions/year) ...... $47 2011 3 2011–2013

4. Benefits in the individual market, as well as information about benefits.45 In In developing these proposed consumers in some large employer- particular, the use of coverage 46 regulations, the Departments carefully sponsored plans, have a number of examples called for by these proposed considered their potential effects, coverage options and must make a regulations would better enable including costs, benefits, and transfers. choice using disclosures and tools that consumers to understand how key Because of data limitations, the vary widely in content and format. A coverage provisions operate in the Departments did not attempt to quantify growing body of decision-making context of recognizable health care expected benefits of these proposed research suggests that the abundance situations and more meaningfully regulations. Nonetheless, the and complexity of information can compare the level of financial protection Departments were able to identify overwhelm consumers and create a offered by a plan or coverage, resulting 47 48 several benefits, which are discussed significant non-price barrier to in potential cost-savings. The below. coverage.43 For example, a RAND study Departments therefore expect that These proposed regulations could of California’s individual market found uniform disclosures under these generate significant economic and social that reducing barriers to information proposed regulations would enable welfare benefits to consumers. Under about health insurance products would consumers to derive more value from these proposed regulations, health lead to increases in purchase rates their health coverage and enhance the insurance issuers and group health comparable to modest price subsidies.44 ability of plan sponsors, particularly plans would provide clear and By ensuring consumers have access to small businesses, to purchase products consistent information to consumers. readily available, concise, and that are appropriate to both their needs Uniform disclosure is anticipated to understandable information about their and the health and financial needs of benefit individuals shopping for, or coverage options, these proposed their employees. enrolled in, group and individual health regulations could reduce consumers’ Finally, these proposed regulations insurance coverage and group health cost of obtaining information and may are expected to facilitate consumers’ plans. The direct benefits of these increase health insurance purchase ability to understand their coverage. As proposed regulations come from rates. improved information, which will 45 A study of California’s individual market found Furthermore, greater transparency in that 25 percent of consumers chose products with enable consumers to better understand pricing and benefits information will premiums that were more than 30 percent higher the coverage they have and allow than the median price for an actuarially equivalent allow consumers to make more consumers choosing coverage to more product for a similar person. Melinda Beeuwkes informed purchasing decisions, easily compare options. As a result, Buntin et al.,’’Trends and Variability In Individual resulting in cost-savings for some value- Insurance Products,’’ Health Affairs w3.449, w3.457 consumers will make better coverage conscious consumers who today pay (2003), available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/ decisions, which more closely match content/early/2003/09/24/hlthaff.w3.449.citation. higher premiums because of imperfect their preferences with respect to benefit 46 The NAIC recommends that the term ‘‘coverage design, level of financial protection, and examples’’ be used as reference to the statutory term cost. The Departments believe that such 43 Judith H. Hibbard and Ellen Peters, ‘‘coverage facts labels,’’ and the Departments concur ‘‘Supporting Informed Consumer Health Care with this recommendation. improvements will result in a more Decisions: Data Presentation Approaches that 47 Shoshanna Sofaer et al., ‘‘Helping Medicare efficient, competitive market. Facilitate the Use of Information in Choice,’’ 24 Beneficiaries Choose Health Insurance: The Illness These proposed regulations would Annu. Rev. Public Health 413, 416 (2003). Episode Approach, 30 The Gerontologist 308–315 also benefit consumers by reducing the 44 M. Susan Marquis et al., ‘‘Consumer Decision (1990). Making in the Individual Health Insurance Market,’’ 48 Michael Schoenbaum et al., ‘‘Health Plan time they spend searching for and 25 Health Affairs w.226, w.231-w.232 (May 2006). Choice and Information about Out-of-Pocket Costs: compiling health plan and coverage Available at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/ An Experimental Analysis,’’ 38 Inquiry 35–48 information. As stated above, consumers content/25/3/w226.full.pdf+html. (Spring 2001).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52455

stated above, research suggests that the new standards and costs to plans.52 The Departments note that, consumers do not understand how implement workflow and process according to 2007 Economic Census coverage works or the terminology used changes, particularly the development data, there are 2,243 TPAs providing in health insurance policies. of information technology (IT) systems administrative services for health and/or Consequently, consumers may face interfaces that would generate SBC welfare funds. However, there is some unexpected medical expenses if they disclosures through data housed in a uncertainty as to whether all of those become seriously ill. They may also number of different systems. The TPAs serve self-insured plans; many become confused by a coverage or maintenance costs include costs to issuers, for example, have subsidiary payment decision made by their plan or maintain and update IT systems in lines of business through administrative issuer, leading to inefficiency in the compliance with the proposed services only (ASO) contracts through operation of employee benefit plans and standards; to produce, review, which they perform third-party health insurance coverage. By making it distribute, and update the SBC administrative functions for self-insured easier for consumers to understand the disclosures; 49 to produce and distribute plans.53 Based on conversations with key features of their coverage, these notices of modifications, and to provide one national TPA association, the proposed regulations would enhance the glossary in paper form upon request. Departments assume that about one- consumers’ ability to use their coverage. With respect to the individual market, third of the total number of TPAs, or Additionally, the uniform format will issuers are responsible for generating, about 748 TPAs, are relevant for make it easier for consumers who reviewing, updating, and distributing purposes of this analysis. However, change jobs or insurance coverage to see SBCs. With respect to employer- given the considerable overlap between how their new plan or coverage benefits sponsored coverage, the Departments issuers and TPAs, the Departments are similar to and different from their assume fully-insured plans will rely on recognize there may be fewer affected previous coverage. health insurance issuers, and self- TPAs, so these estimates should be considered an upper bound of burden 5. Costs insured plans will rely on TPAs, to perform these functions. While plans estimates. These estimates may be Section 2715 of the PHS Act and these adjusted proportionally in the final proposed regulations direct group may prepare the SBC disclosures internally, the Departments make this regulations based upon additional health plans and health insurance information about the number of TPAs issuers to compile and provide a simplifying assumption because most plans appear to rely on issuers and serving self-insured plans. summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) Because the SBC disclosures are TPAs for the purpose of administrative (that includes coverage examples (CEs)) closely related to disclosures that duties such as enrollment and claims and a uniform glossary of health issuers and TPAs provide today as a processing.50 coverage and medical terms. The Thus, the Departments use part of their normal operations (e.g., Departments have attempted to quantify health insurance issuers and TPAs as information on premiums, covered one-time start-up costs as well as the unit of analysis for the purposes of benefits, and cost sharing), the maintenance costs. However, there is estimating administrative costs. incremental costs of compiling and uncertainty arising from general data As discussed in the Medical Loss providing such readily available limitations and the degree to which Ratio (MLR) interim final rule (75 FR information in the proposed, economies of scale can be realized to 74918), the Departments estimate there standardized format is estimated to be reduce costs for issuers and TPAs. The are about 440 firms offering modest.54 The per-issuer or -TPA cost costs estimates employ assumptions that comprehensive coverage in the will largely be determined by its size we believe more than fully capture individual, small, or large group (based on annual premium revenues) expected issuer and third-party markets, and 75 million covered lives and current practices—most administrator costs, and perhaps therein.51 The number of covered lives importantly, whether the issuer or TPA overestimate them if, for example, includes individuals in the individual maintains a robust information economies of scale are achievable. On market as well as those in insured group technology infrastructure, including a the basis of such assumptions, the health plans. plan benefits design database. Moreover, Departments estimate that issuers and With respect to the self-insured with regard to issuers, administrative TPAs will incur approximately $25 market, the Departments estimate there costs may be related to the number of million in costs in 2011, $73 million in are 77 million individuals in self- markets in which it operates (that is, costs in 2012, and $58 million in costs insured ERISA-covered plans and in 2013. These costs and the approximately 14 million individuals in 52 U.S. Department of Labor, EBSA calculations methodology used to estimate them are self-insured non-Federal governmental using the March 2009 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the discussed below, and presented in 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey; see also Tables 2–5 below. 49 Plans and issuers subject to ERISA or the Code interim final rule for internal claims and appeals may provide SBCs electronically only if the and external review processes (75 FR 43330, General Assumptions requirements of the Department of Labor’s 43345). In order to assess the potential electronic disclosure safe harbor at 29 CFR 53 See, for example, the Department of Labor’s administrative costs relating to these 2520.104b–1 are met. Otherwise, by default, plans March 2011 report to Congress on self-insured and issuers must use paper versions of SBCs. health plans, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/ proposed regulations, the Departments 50 See, for example, the Department of Labor’s pdf/ACAReportToCongress032811.pdf. consulted with industry experts to gain March 2011 report to Congress on self-insured 54 For example, issuers in the individual and insight into the tasks and level of health plans, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/ small group markets already report some of the SBC resources required. Based on these pdf/ACAReportToCongress032811.pdf. information to HHS for display in the plan finder 51 The NAIC data actually indicate 442 issuers on the HealthCare.gov Web site. Issuers have been discussions, the Departments estimate and 74,830,101 covered lives. But the Departments reporting data to HHS since May 2010 and have that there will be two categories of have limited these values to only two significant refreshed that data on a quarterly basis. These principal costs associated with the figures given general data uncertainty. For example, reporting entities have demonstrated that they have standards in these proposed regulations: the NAIC data do not include issuers regulated by the capacity to report information on plan benefit California’s Department of Managed Health Care design. See http://finder.healthcare.gov/. Further, one-time start-up costs and maintenance (DMHC) as well as small, single-State issuers that ERISA-covered plans already report some of the costs. The one-time start-up costs are not required by State regulators to submit NAIC SBC information in summary plan descriptions include costs to develop teams to review annual financial statements. (SPDs).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52456 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

individual, small group, or large group provide better information or data about In 2012 and 2013, issuers and TPAs market); the number of policies it offers; any of the following assumptions. would produce CEs for three benefits and the number of States and licensed IT Systems and Workflow Process scenarios. The Departments estimate it entities through which it offers Changes will take each issuer/TPA 90 hours to coverage. The Departments estimate that it produce, and 30 hours to review, CEs To account for variations among would take a large issuer/TPA about 960 for all applicable products. The issuers, the Departments classify them hours to implement IT systems and Departments assume that the 90 hours by size as small, medium, and large workflow process changes, based on to produce the CEs would be equally issuers based on 2009 premium revenue discussions with a large issuer. The divided between IT professionals and for individual, small group, and large Departments assume that these IT benefits/sales professionals. The group comprehensive coverage.55 systems and workflow process changes Departments also assume that the 30 Consistent with the assumptions that would be implemented only by IT hours to review the CEs would be were used in the MLR interim final rule, professionals. Furthermore, the equally divided between financial small issuers are defined as those Departments assume that a medium managers for benefits/sales earning up to $50 million in annual issuer/TPA would need about 75% of a professionals and attorneys. premium revenue; medium issuers as large issuer’s/TPA’s time, and a small The Departments assume that in 2012 those earning between $50 million and issuer would need about 50% of a large and 2013, respectively, issuers and $1 billion in annual premium revenue; issuer’s/TPA’s time, to implement IT TPAs would provide, upon request, a and large issuers as those earning more systems and workflow process changes. paper copy of the uniform glossary to than $1 billion in annual premium The Departments estimate that it 2.5% and 5% of covered individuals revenue. Based on these assumptions, would take a large issuer/TPA about 160 who receive a glossary. The the Departments estimate there are 140 hours to develop teams to analyze the Departments assume that individuals small, 230 medium, and 70 large new standards in relation to their who do not request a paper copy of the issuers. current workflow processes. The glossary will access it electronically To account for variations among Departments assume such teams would using the Internet address provided in TPAs, the Departments applied the be comprised of IT professionals (45%), the SBC. proportions of small, medium, and large benefits/sales professionals (50%), and For each individual who receives the issuers to the estimated 750 TPAs. The attorneys (5%). We scale down the SBC or uniform glossary in paper form, Departments acknowledge that issuers burden for medium and small issuers/ the Departments estimate that printing and TPAs are different and may not TPAs by assuming the same relative and distributing the paper disclosures have the same size variation. proportion as above (that is, 75 percent would take clerical staff about 1 minute Nonetheless, given general data and 50 percent, respectively). (0.02 hours) in the group markets and limitations, the Departments have The Departments assume that each about 2 minutes (0.03 hours) in the adopted this methodology, and, on its issuer/TPA would incur a maintenance individual market. The Departments basis, estimate that there are 240 small, cost to maintain IT systems and address assume that the individual market has 390 medium, and 120 large TPAs. Table changes in regulatory requirements. The lower economies of scale and, thus, 2 below provides a synopsis of the Departments assume the maintenance increased distribution costs. number of issuers and TPAs. cost would equal 15% of the total one- Labor Cost Assumptions time burden noted above (for example, Table 7 below presents the TABLE 2—ISSUER AND TPA SIZE the Departments assume it will take a Departments’ hourly labor cost CLASSIFICATION large issuer 15% of 1120 hours, or 168 assumptions (stated in 2011 dollars) for hours). The Departments further assume each staff category based on BLS data. Small Medium Large that the teams to implement the The Departments use mean hourly wage maintenance tasks would be comprised Issuers .. 140 230 70 estimates from the Bureau of Labor of IT professionals (55%), benefits/sales TPAs ..... 240 390 120 Statistics’ (BLS) May 2009 National professionals (40%), and attorneys (5%). Occupational Employment and Wage The Departments assume that the one- Staffing Assumptions Estimates (accessed at http:// time and maintenance costs to www.bls.gov/oes/current/ Table 6 below summarizes the implement IT systems changes and to oes_nat.htm#00–0000) for computer Departments’ staffing assumptions, address these regulations would be split systems analysts (Occupation Code 15– including the estimated number of between the costs to produce SBCs 1051), insurance underwriters hours for each task for a small, medium, (50%) and the costs to produce the CEs (Occupation Code 13–2053), financial or large issuer/TPA as well as the (50%). managers (Occupation Code 23–1011), percentage of time that different Production and Review of SBCs and executive secretaries and administrative professionals devote to each task. The CEs following assumptions are based on the assistants (Occupation Code 43–6011), The Departments estimate that each and attorneys (Occupation Code 23– best information available to the issuer/TPA would need 3 hours to Departments at this time. Particularly, 1011) as the basis for estimating labor produce, and 1 hour to review, SBCs costs for 2011 through 2013 and adjust the following series of assumptions are (not including CEs) for all products. The based on conversations with industry the hourly wage rate to include a 33% Departments assume that the 3 hours fringe benefit estimate for private sector experts, the Departments’ understanding needed to produce the SBCs would be employees.56 of the regulated community, and equally divided between IT previous analysis in the MLR interim professionals and benefits/sales Distribution Assumptions final rule. We welcome comments that professionals. The Departments assume The Departments make the following that the 1 hour needed to review the 55 The premium revenue data come from the 2009 assumptions regarding the distribution NAIC financial statements, also known as ‘‘Blanks,’’ SBCs would be equally divided between where insurers report information about their financial managers for benefits/sales 56 See the Technical Appendix to the MLR various lines of business. professionals and attorneys. interim final rule, available at http://cciio.cms.gov.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52457

of the SBC disclosures (including implementation, the number of notices print a complete SBC (which is six sides CEs).57 These assumptions are based on of modifications would be negligible. of a page based on the length of the the best information available to the • Electronic distribution will account NAIC sample completed SBC) and $0.12 Departments at this time. Particularly, for 38 percent of all disclosures in the cents to print the uniform glossary the following series of assumptions are group market and 70 percent of all (which is four sides of a page, based on based on conversations with industry disclosures in the individual market. the length of the NAIC recommended experts, the Departments’ understanding The estimate for the group market is uniform glossary). This cost burden is in of the regulated community, and based on the methodology used to addition to the 1 minute or 2 minutes previous analysis in the MLR interim analyze the cost burden for the DOL it would take clerical staff to print and final rule. The distribution assumptions claims procedure regulation (OMB distribute the SBC or glossary. are as follows: Control Number 1210–0053).60 The • The SBCs would be limited to one estimate for the individual market is Cost Estimate per household for family members based on statistics set forth by the located at the same residence. National Telecommunications and The Tables below present costs and According to one large issuer, there are Information Administration, which burden hours for issuers and TPAs 2.2 covered lives per family. indicate that 30% of Americans do not associated the proposed disclosure • The number of individuals who use the Internet.61 requirements of PHS Act section 2715. would receive an SBC before enrolling • SBC disclosures would be Tables 3–5 contain cost estimates for in the plan or coverage equals 20% of distributed with usual marketing and 2011, 2012, and 2013, derived from the the number of enrollees at any point enrollment materials, thus, costs to mail labor hours presented in Table 3 and the during the course of a year.58 the documents will be negligible. hourly rate estimates presented in Table • In 2013, about 2% of covered However, notices of modifications 7, as well as estimates of non-labor individuals would receive a notice of would require mailing and supply costs costs. Labor hour estimates were modifications.59 Further, the burden as follows: $0.44 postage cost per developed for each one-time and and cost of providing such notices mailing and $0.05 supply cost per maintenance task associated with would be proportional to the combined mailing. analyzing requirements, developing IT burden and cost of providing the SBCs, • Printing costs $0.03 cents per side systems, and producing SBCs (that including CEs. In 2012, the first year of of a page. Thus, it would cost $0.18 to include CEs).

TABLE 3—2011 HOUR BURDEN, EQUIVALENT COST, AND COST BURDEN—2011 DOLLARS

Number of affected entities Hour burden Equivalent cost

SBC Requirements—Issuers—One Time ...... 440 88,000 $4,600,000 SBC Requirements—TPAs—One-Time ...... 750 150,000 7,800,000 Coverage Example Requirements—Issuers—One Time ...... 440 88,000 4,600,000 Coverage Example Requirements—TPAs—One-Time ...... 750 150,000 7,800,000 Total ...... 240,000 25,000,000

TABLE 4—2012 HOUR BURDEN, EQUIVALENT COST, AND COST BURDEN—2011 DOLLARS

Number of af- Cost burden Number of dis- fected entities Hour burden Equivalent cost (non-labor) closures

SBC Requirements—Issuers ...... 440 540,000 $18,000,000 $2,900,000 41,000,000 SBC Requirements—TPAs ...... 750 660,000 23,000,000 3,700,000 49,000,000 Coverage Example Requirements—Issuers .... 440 140,000 7,600,000 1,500,000 41,000,000 Coverage Example Requirements—TPAs ...... 750 240,000 13,000,000 1,800,000 49,000,000 Glossary Requests—Issuers ...... 440 11,000 330,000 370,000 610,000 Glossary Requests—TPAs ...... 750 13,000 370,000 470,000 770,000 Subtotal ...... 1,600,000 62,000,000 11,000,000 91,000,000 Total 2012 Costs ...... 73,000,000

57 Although CEs are an integral component of a Summary of Material Modifications (SMM) no percent of plans will need to issue an updated SBC SBCs, the costs associated with CEs are different later than 210 days after the end of the plan year mid-year, because mid-year changes that would from the rest of the SBC, and, thus, are separately in which the material change was adopted. As part result in an update to the SBC are very rare. For calculated within this analysis. of its analysis for the Department of Labor’s SPD/ purposes of simplification, the Departments extend 58 Based on this assumption, the Departments SMM regulations (29 CFR 2520.104b-(3)), the this assumption to the individual market as well. Department estimated that about 20 percent of estimated that small issuers or TPAs have about 60 See the ERISA e-disclosure rule at 29 CFR health plans would need to distribute SMM in a 180,000 shoppers in a given year, medium issuers given year due to plan amendments. However, 2520.104b–1. or TPAs have 3,700,000 shoppers in a given year, almost all of these modification occur between plan 61 U.S. Department of Commerce, National and large issuers or TPAs have 11,000,000 shoppers years—not during a plan year; therefore, the Telecommunications and Information in a given year. modifications would be required to be disclosed in Administration, Digital Nation (February 2010), 59 ERISA section 104(b) requires ERISA-covered a SBC that is distributed upon renewal of coverage. available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/ plans to furnish participants and beneficiaries with The Departments, thus, expects that only two NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52458 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5—2013 HOUR BURDEN, EQUIVALENT COST, AND COST BURDEN—2011 DOLLARS

Number of af- Cost burden Number of dis- fected entities Hour burden Equivalent cost (non-labor) closures

SBC Requirements—Issuers ...... 440 480,000 $15,000,000 $2,900,000 41,000,000 SBC Requirements—TPAs ...... 750 560,000 17,000,000 3,700,000 49,000,000 Coverage Example Requirements—Issuers .... 440 79,000 4,300,000 1,500,000 41,000,000 Coverage Example Requirements—TPAs ...... 750 130,000 7,200,000 1,800,000 49,000,000 Notice of Material Modifications—Issuers ...... 440 10,000 320,000 330,000 820,000 Notice of Material Modifications—TPAs ...... 750 12,000 400,000 400,000 1,000,000 Glossary Requests—Issuers ...... 440 23,000 660,000 700,000 1,200,000 Glossary Requests—TPAs ...... 750 26,000 750,000 900,000 1,500,000 Subtotal ...... 1,300,000 46,000,000 12,000,000 95,000,000 Total 2013 Costs ...... 58,000,000

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED STAFFING HOURS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE ISSUERS AND TPAS

Hours Percent of hours Staffing hour assumptions by task Medium issuer/ Small issuer/TPA TPA Large issuer/TPA

IT Development and Workflow Process Change

One-Time Develop Teams/Analyze Requirements (IT, underwriting/sales) ...... 80 120 160 IT Professionals Benefits/Sales ...... 45 36 54 72 Professionals ...... 50 40 60 80 Attorneys ...... 5 4 6 8 Implementing Systems Changes (IT and workflow) ...... 480 720 960 IT Professionals ...... 100 480 720 960 Maintenance Updating to Address Changes in Requirements ...... 84 126 168 IT Professionals Benefits/Sales ...... 55 46.20 69.30 92.40 Professionals ...... 40 33.60 50.40 67.20 Attorneys ...... 5 4.20 6.30 8.40

SBC Requirement (maintenance)

Producing SBCs ...... 3 3 3 IT Professionals Benefits/Sales ...... 50 1.5 1.5 1.5 Professionals ...... 50 1.5 1.5 1.5 Internal Review of SBCs ...... 1 1 1 Financial Managers—Benefits/Sales Professionals ...... 50 0.5 0.5 0.5 Attorneys ...... 50 0.5 0.5 0.5 Producing and Distributing Paper Version of SBCs (Group Mar- kets). Clerical Staff ...... 100 0.02 0.02 0.02 Producing and Distributing Paper Version of SBCs (Individual Market). Clerical Staff ...... 100 0.03 0.03 0.02

CE Requirement (maintenance)

Producing 3 CEs ...... 90 90 90 IT Professionals Benefits/Sales ...... 50 45 45 45 Professionals ...... 50 45 45 45 Internal Review of 3 CEs ...... 30 30 30 Financial Managers—Benefits/Sales ...... 50 15 15 15 Professionals. Attorneys ...... 50 15 15 15

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED LOADED HOURLY WAGES FOR STAFF CATEGORIES

Loaded hourly Staff category BLS code wage (2011 Dollars)

IT Professionals ...... Computer Systems Analysts (Occupation Code 15–1051) ..... $53.26 Financial Professionals—Benefits/Sales ...... Insurance Underwriters (Occupation Code 13–2053) ...... 41.94 Financial Manager ...... Financial Managers (Occupation Code 11–3031) ...... 75.32 Attorneys ...... Lawyers (Occupation Code 23–1011) ...... 85.44 Clerical Staff ...... Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants (Occu- 29.15 pation Code 43–6011).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52459

6. Regulatory Alternatives that is not reflected in the most recently annual receipts for both health insurers Several provisions in these proposed provided SBC. The Departments note (North American Industry Classification regulations involved policy choices. A that a material modification, within the System, or NAICS, Code 524114) and first policy choice involved determining meaning of section 102 of ERISA and its TPAs (NAICS Code 524292). how to minimize the burden of implementing regulations at 29 CFR Additionally, as discussed in the 2520.104b-3, is broadly defined to providing the SBC to individuals and Medical Loss Ratio interim final rule (75 include any modification to the employers shopping for health FR 74918), HHS used a data set created insurance coverage. The Departments coverage offered under the plan or policy, that independently, or in from 2009 National Association of recognize it may be difficult for issuers Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Health to provide accurate information about conjunction with other contemporaneous modifications or and Life Blank annual financial the terms of coverage prior to changes, would be considered by the statement data to develop an updated underwriting. Accordingly, the average plan participant to be an estimate of the number of small entities proposed regulations provide that important change in covered benefits or that offer comprehensive major medical issuers offering health insurance other terms of coverage under the plan coverage in the individual and group coverage in connection with the or policy. The proposed regulations markets. For purposes of that analysis, individual market that make would interpret this provision as HHS used total Accident and Health information for their standard policies requiring notice only for a material (A&H) earned premiums as a proxy for available on the Secretary of HHS’s Web modification that (1) affects the annual receipts. HHS estimated that portal (HealthCare.gov), in compliance information in the SBC; and (2) occurs there were 28 small entities with less with 45 CFR 159.120, will have satisfied other than in connection with renewal than $7 million in A&H earned the requirement to provide an SBC to or reissuance of coverage (that is, a mid- premiums offering individual or group individuals who request information plan or -policy year change). This comprehensive major medical coverage; about coverage. The Departments approach is consistent with the believe this approach promotes however, this estimate may overstate the language of section 2715(d)(4) and is actual number of small health insurance regulatory efficiency, minimizing the more narrowly focused on what we administrative burden on health issuers offering such coverage, since it interpret to be the purpose of that does not include receipts from these insurance issuers without lessening the provision. protections under PHS Act section 2715. companies’ other lines of business. A second choice related to whether, B. Regulatory Flexibility Act— These 28 small entities represent about in the case of covered individuals Department of Labor and Department of 6.4 percent of the approximately 440 residing at the same address, one SBC Health and Human Services health insurers that are accounted for in would satisfy the disclosure The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) this RIA. Based on this calculation, the requirement with respect to all such requires agencies that issue a regulation Departments assume that there are an individuals, or whether multiple SBCs to analyze options for regulatory relief equal percentage of TPAs that are small would be required to be provided. of small businesses if a proposed rule entities. That is, 48 small entities Under the proposed regulations, the has a significant impact on a substantial represent about 6.4 percent of the Departments allow a plan or issuer to number of small entities. The RFA approximately 750 TPAs that are provide a single SBC in circumstances generally defines a ‘‘small entity’’ as (1) accounted for in this RIA. in which a participant and any a proprietary firm meeting the size The Departments estimate that issuers beneficiaries (or, in the individual standards of the Small Business and TPAs earning less than $50 million market, the primary subscriber and any Administration (SBA), (2) a nonprofit in annual premium revenue, including covered dependents) are known to organization that is not dominant in its the 76 small entities mentioned above, reside at the same address. field, or (3) a small government would incur costs of approximately In the group market, the proposed jurisdiction with a population of less $15,000, $26,000, and $15,000 per regulations would further limit burden than 50,000. (States and individuals are issuer/TPA in 2011, 2012 and 2013, by requiring a plan or issuer to provide, not included in the definition of ‘‘small respectively. Numbers of this magnitude at renewal, a new SBC for only the entity.’’) The Departments use as their do not approach the amounts necessary benefit package in which a participant measure of significant economic impact to be considered a ‘‘significant or beneficiary is enrolled. That is, if the on a substantial number of small entities economic impact’’ on firms with plan offers multiple benefits packages, a change in revenues of more than 3 to revenues in the order of millions of an SBC is not required for each benefit 5 percent. package offered under the group health As discussed in the Web Portal dollars. Additionally, as discussed plan, which the Departments believe interim final rule (75 FR 24481), HHS earlier, the Departments believe that would otherwise create an undue examined the health insurance industry these estimates overstate the number of burden during open season. Participants in depth in the Regulatory Impact small entities that will be affected by the and beneficiaries would be able to Analysis we prepared for the proposed requirements in this proposed receive upon request an SBC for any rule on establishment of the Medicare regulation, as well as the relative impact benefits package for which they are Advantage program (69 FR 46866, of these requirements on these entities, eligible. The Departments believe this August 3, 2004). In that analysis, HHS because the Departments have based balanced approach addresses the needs determined that there were few if any their analysis on the affected entities’ of plans, issuers, and consumers, at insurance firms underwriting total A&H earned premiums (rather than renewal. comprehensive health insurance their total annual receipts). Accordingly, A third policy choice related to the policies (in contrast, for example, to the Departments have determined and interpretation of the PHS Act section travel insurance policies or dental certify that these proposed rules will not 2715(d)(4), which requires notice of any discount policies) that fell below the have a significant economic impact on material modification (as defined for size thresholds for ‘‘small’’ business a substantial number of small entities, purposes of section 102 of ERISA) in established by the SBA. Currently, the and that a regulatory flexibility analysis any of the terms of the plan or coverage SBA size threshold is $7 million in is not required.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52460 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

C. Special Analyses—Department of the disclosures that will affect private sector concerning these disclosures. The Treasury firms (for example, health insurance Departments have submitted a copy of For purposes of the Department of the issuers offering coverage in the these interim final regulations to OMB Treasury it has been determined that individual and group markets, and in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) for this notice of proposed rulemaking is third-party administrators providing review of the information collections. not a significant regulatory action as administrative services to group health The Departments and OMB are defined in Executive Order 12866. plans), but we tentatively conclude that particularly interested in comments these costs will not exceed the $136 that: Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not • required. It has also been determined million threshold. Thus, we tentatively Evaluate whether the collection of that section 553(b) of the Administrative conclude that these proposed information is necessary for the proper regulations do not impose an unfunded Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does performance of the functions of the mandate on State, local or Tribal not apply to these proposed regulations. agency, including whether the governments or the private sector. It is hereby certified that the collections information will have practical utility; Regardless, consistent with policy • Evaluate the accuracy of the of information contained in this notice embodied in UMRA, this notice of agency’s estimate of the burden of the of proposed rulemaking will not have a proposed rulemaking has been designed collection of information, including the significant impact on a substantial to be the least burdensome alternative validity of the methodology and number of small entities. Accordingly, a for State, local and Tribal governments, assumptions used; regulatory flexibility analysis under the and the private sector while achieving • Enhance the quality, utility, and Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. the objectives of the Affordable Care clarity of the information to be chapter 6) is not required. Section Act. collected; and 54.9815–2715 of the proposed • Minimize the burden of the E. Paperwork Reduction Act regulations would require both group collection of information on those who health insurance issuers and group 1. Department of Labor and Department are to respond, including through the health plans to distribute an SBC and of the Treasury use of appropriate automated, notice of any material modifications to electronic, mechanical, or other the plan that affect the information Section 2715 of the PHS Act directs the Departments, in consultation with technological collection techniques or required in the SBC. Under these other forms of information technology, proposed regulations, if a health the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and a working for example, by permitting electronic insurance issuer satisfies the obligations submission of responses. to distribute an SBC and a notice of group comprised of stakeholders, to modifications, those obligations are ‘‘develop standards for use by a group Comments should be sent to the Office satisfied not just for the issuer but also health plan and a health insurance of Information and Regulatory Affairs, for the group health plan. For group issuer in compiling and providing to Attention: Desk Officer for the health plans maintained by small applicants, enrollees, and policyholders Employee Benefits Security entities, it is anticipated that the health and certificate holders a summary of Administration either by fax to (202) benefits and coverage explanation that 395–5806 or by e-mail to insurance issuer will satisfy these _ obligations for both the plan and the accurately describes the benefits and oira [email protected]. A copy issuer in almost all cases. For this coverage under the applicable plan or of the ICR may be obtained by reason, these information collection coverage.’’ Plans and issuers are contacting the PRA addressee: G. requirements will not impose a required to begin providing the Christopher Cosby, Office of Policy and significant impact on a substantial disclosure (herein referred to as a Research, U.S. Department of Labor, number of small entities. Pursuant to ‘‘summary of benefits and coverage’’ or Employee Benefits Security SBC) no later than March 23, 2012. section 7805(f) of the Code, this Administration, 200 Constitution To implement this provision, regulation has been submitted to the Avenue, NW., Room N–5718, collection of information requirements Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: relate to the provision of the following: (202) 693–8410; Fax: (202) 219–4745. Business Administration for comment • Summary of benefits and coverage. These are not toll-free numbers. E-mail: on its impact on small business. • Coverage examples (as components [email protected]. ICRs submitted to D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act— of each SBC). • OMB also are available at reginfo.gov Department of Labor and Department of A uniform glossary of health (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ Health and Human Services coverage and medical terms (uniform PRAMain). glossary). Section 202 of the Unfunded • Notice of modifications. The Departments estimate 858 Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 In developing these collections of respondents each year from 2011–2013. that agencies assess anticipated costs information, the Departments have This estimate reflects approximately 220 and benefits before issuing any incorporated the documents issuers offering comprehensive major proposed rule that includes a Federal recommended by the NAIC, including medical coverage in the small and large mandate that could result in the SBC template (with instructions, group markets, and approximately 638 expenditure in any one year by State, samples and a guide for coverage third-party administrators (TPAs).62 local or Tribal governments, in the examples calculations to be used in aggregate, or by the private sector, of completing the template) and the 62 The Departments estimate that there are 440 $100 million in 1995 dollars updated uniform glossary. These collection issuers and 750 TPAs. Because the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury share the annually for inflation. In 2011, that instruments were developed over a hour and cost burden for issuers and TPAs with the threshold level is approximately $136 period of several months and agreed to Department of Health and Human Services, the million. These proposed regulations by the entire NAIC working group and burden to produce the SBCs including Coverage include no mandates on State, local, or recommended to the Departments by the Examples for group health plans is calculated using half the number of issuers (220) and 85% of the Tribal governments. These proposed NAIC. TPAs (638). While the group health plans could regulations include directions to Currently, the Departments are prepare their own SBCs including coverage produce standardized consumer soliciting public comments for 60 days examples, the Departments assume that SBCs

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52461

To account for variation in firm size, Departments estimate approximately 70 these proposed regulations. This the Departments estimate a weighted small, 115 medium, and 35 large calculation is made assuming issuers burden on the basis of issuer’s 2009 issuers. Similarly, the Departments and TPAs will need to implement two total earned premiums for estimate approximately 204 small, 332 principal tasks: (1) Develop teams to comprehensive major medical medium, and 102 large TPAs. analyze current workflow processes coverage.63 The Departments define 2011 Burden Estimate against the new rules and (2) make small issuers as those with total earned appropriate changes to IT systems and While the disclosures in these premiums less than $50 million; processes. proposed regulations are not required medium issuers as those with total until March 2012, the Departments With respect to task (1), the earned premiums between $50 million estimate a one-time administrative cost Departments estimate about 97,000 and $999 million; and large issuers as of about $36,000,000 across the industry burden hours and an equivalent cost of those with total earned premiums of $1 and a total of about 680,000 burden about $4,800,000. The Departments billion or more. Accordingly, the hours to prepare for the provisions of calculate these estimates as follows:64

TASK 1—ANALYZE CURRENT WORKFLOW AND NEW RULES

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

IT Professionals ...... $53.26 36 $1,900 54 $2,900 72 $3,800 Benefits/Sales Profes- sionals ...... 41.94 40 1,700 60 2,500 80 3,400 Attorneys ...... 85.44 4 340 6 510 8 680

Total per issuer/ TPA ...... 80 3,900 120 5,900 160 7,900

Total for all issuers/TPAs ..... 22,000 1,100,000 53,000 2,600,000 22,000 1,100,000

With respect to task (2), the about $31,000,000. The Departments Departments estimate about 580,000 calculate these estimates as follows: burden hours and an equivalent cost of

TASK 2—IT CHANGES

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours Cost

IT Professionals...... $53.26 480 $26,000 720 $38,000 960 $51,000

Total per issuer/ TPA ...... 480 26,000 720 38,000 960 51,000

Total for all issuers/TPAs ..... 130,000 7,100,000 320,000 17,000,000 130,000 7,000,000

The Departments assume the total 2012 Burden Estimate electronically distributed, and about one-time administrative burden will be The estimate hour and cost burden for 48,000,000 SBCs would be distributed divided equally between 2011 and 2012. the collections of information in 2012 in paper form. The Departments assume Thus, in 2011, the Departments estimate are as follows: there are no costs associated with a one-time administrative cost of about • The Departments estimate that there electronic disclosures; there are costs $18,000,000 across the industry and will be about 77,000,000 SBC responses. only with regard to paper disclosures. about 340,000 hours. The Departments • The Departments assume that of the Summary of Benefits and Coverage assume issuers and TPAs will incur no total number of SBC responses, 38% (not including coverage examples)—The other costs in 2011 related to the would be sent electronically in the estimated hour burden is about 820,000 proposed collection of information. small and large group markets. hours, and the estimated total cost is Accordingly, the Departments estimate about $30,000,000. The Departments that about 29,000,000 SBCs would be calculate these estimates as follows:

including coverage examples would be prepared by 63 The premium revenue data come from the 2009 64 For the purposes of these and other estimates service providers, i.e., issuers and TPAs. NAIC financial statements, also known as ‘‘Blanks,’’ in this section III.E, the Departments again use the where insurers report information about their assumptions outlined above in section III.A.5. various lines of business.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52462 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TASK 1—EQUIVALENT COSTS FOR PRODUCING SBCS

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

IT Professionals ...... $53.26 1.5 $80 1.5 $80 1.5 $80 Benefits/Sales Profes- sionals ...... 41.94 1.5 63 1.5 63 1.5 63 Financial Managers ...... 75.32 0.5 38 0.5 38 0.5 38 Attorneys ...... 85.44 0.5 43 0.5 43 0.5 43

Total per issuer/ TPA ...... 4 220 4 220 4 220

Total for all issuers/TPAs ..... 1100 61,000 1800 100,000 550 31,000

TASK 2—EQUIVALENT COSTS FOR DISTRIBUTING SBCS

Hourly wage Hours per Total number Total equiva- rate SBC of SBCs Total hours lent cost

Clerical Staff ...... $29.15 0.017 48,000,000 820,000 $24,000,000

TASK 1—COST BURDEN FOR PRINTING SBCS

Total cost bur- Cost per SBC Total SBCs den

Printing Costs ...... $0.12 48,000,000 $5,800,0000

Task 2: Coverage Examples—The about $8,700,000. The Departments estimated hour burden is about 100,000 calculate these estimates as follows: hours, and the estimated total cost is

TASK 2—EQUIVALENT COSTS FOR PRODUCING COVERAGE EXAMPLES

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

IT Professionals ...... $53.26 45 $2,400 45 $2,400 45 $2,400 Benefits/Sales Profes- sionals ...... 41.94 45 1,900 45 1,900 45 1,900 Financial Managers...... 75.32 15 1,100 15 1,100 15 1,100 Attorneys ...... 85.44 15 1,300 15 1,300 15 1,300

Total per issuer/ TPA ...... 120 6,700 120 6,700 120 6,700

Total for all issuers/TPAs ..... 33,000 1,900,000 53,000 3,000,000 16,000 900,000

TASK 2—COST BURDEN FOR PRINTING COVERAGE EXAMPLES

Printing cost Total CEs Total cost per CE printed burden

Printing Costs ...... $0.06 48,000,000 $2,900,000

Task 3: Glossary Requests—The will request glossaries. The Departments (including $0.44 for first-class postage Departments assume that in 2012, further estimate that the burden and and $0.05 for supply costs). issuers and TPAs will begin responding cost of providing the notices to be 2.5% Accordingly, in 2012, the Departments to glossary requests to covered of the burden and cost of distributing estimate a total cost of about $1,300,000 individuals, and that 2.5% of covered paper SBCs, plus an additional cost and 21,000 burden hours associated individuals, who receive paper SBCs, burden of $0.49 for each glossary with about 1,200,000 glossary requests.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52463

Task 4: One-Time Administrative Task 2: Coverage Examples—The glossary requests to covered individuals, Costs—As mentioned above, the Departments again estimate a total cost and that 5% of covered individuals, Departments estimate a one-time of about $8,700,000 and 100,000 burden who receive paper SBCs, will request administrative cost of about $36,000,000 hours for coverage examples. glossaries. The Departments further across the industry and a total of about Task 3: Notices of Modifications—The estimate that the burden and cost of 680,000 burden hours, and assume this Departments assume that in 2013, providing the glossaries to be 5% of the burden will be equally divided between issuers and TPAs would send notices of burden and cost of distributing paper 2011 and 2012. Thus, in 2012, the modifications to covered individuals, SBCs, plus an additional cost burden for Departments estimate a one-time and that 2% of covered individuals $0.49 for each glossary (including $0.44 administrative cost of about $18,000,000 would receive such notice. The for first-class postage and $0.05 for across the industry and about 340,000 Departments further estimate that the supply costs). Accordingly, in 2013, the burden hours. burden and cost of providing the notices Departments estimate a total cost of The total 2012 burden estimate is to be 2% of the combined burden and about $2,700,000 and 41,000 burden about $58,000,000. The total number of cost of the SBCs including the coverage hours associated with 2,400,000 burden hours is about 1,300,000. examples, plus an additional cost glossary requests. burden for $0.49 for each paper notice Task 5: Maintenance Administrative 2013 Burden Estimate (including $0.44 for first-class postage Costs—In 2013, the Departments assume Task 1: Summary of Benefits and and $0.05 for supply costs). that issuers and TPAs will need to make Coverage (not including coverage Accordingly, in 2013, the Departments updates to address changes in examples)—The number of SBC estimate a total cost of about $1,400,000 standards, and, thus, incur 15% of the responses is assumed to remain and 18,000 burden hours associated one-time administrative burden. constant. Thus, in 2013, the with about 1,500,000 notices of Accordingly, the estimated hour burden Departments again estimate a total cost modification. is about 100,000 hours, and the of about $30,000,000 and about 820,000 Task 4: Glossary Requests—The estimated total cost is about $5,400,000. burden hours for SBCs (not including Departments assume that in 2013, The Departments calculate these coverage examples). issuers and TPAs will again respond to estimates as follows:

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

IT Professionals ...... $53.26 46.2 $2,500 69.3 $3,700 92.4 $4,900 Benefits/Sales Profes- sionals ...... 41.94 33.6 1,800 50.4 2,700 67.2 3,600 Attorneys ...... 85.44 4.2 220 6.3 340 8.4 450

Total per issuer/ TPA ...... 84 4,500 126 6,700 168 8,900

Total for all issuers/TPAs ...... 23,000 1,200,000 56,000 3,000,000 23,000 1,200,000

The total 2013 cost estimate is about Estimated Total Annual Burden To account for variation in firm size, $48,000,000.The total number of burden Hours: 600,000 hours (Employee the Department estimates a weighted hours is about 1,100,000 hours. Benefits Security Administration); burden on the basis of issuer’s 2009 The Departments note that persons 600,000 hours (Internal Revenue total earned premiums for are not required to respond to, and Service). comprehensive major medical generally are not subject to any penalty Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: coverage.66 The Department defines for failing to comply with, an ICR unless $5,100,000 (Employee Benefits Security small issuers as those with total earned the ICR has a valid OMB control Administration); $5,100,000 (Internal premiums less than $50 million; number. Revenue Service). medium issuers as those with total The 2012–2013 paperwork burden 2. Department of Health and Human earned premiums between $50 million estimates are summarized as follows: Services and $999 million; and large issuers as Type of Review: New collection. The Department estimates 333 those with total earned premiums of $1 Agencies: Employee Benefits Security respondents each year from 2011–2013. billion or more. Accordingly, the Administration, Department of Labor; This estimate reflects the approximately Internal Revenue Service, U.S. 220 issuers offering comprehensive Treasury, the burden to produce the SBCs including Department of the Treasury. coverage examples for non-Federal governmental major medical coverage in the plans and issuers in the individual market is Title: Affordable Care Act Uniform individual market and to fully-insured calculated using half the number of issuers (221) Explanation of Coverage Documents. non-Federal governmental plans, and and 15% of TPAs (113). While non-Federal OMB Number: XXXX–XXX; XXXX– 113 TPAs acting as service providers for governmental plans could prepare their own SBCs XXXX. including Coverage Examples, the Department self-insured non-Federal governmental assumes that SBCs including coverage examples 65 Affected Public: Business or other for plans. would be prepared by service providers, i.e., issuers profit; not-for-profit institutions. and TPAs. Total Respondents: 858. 65 The Department estimates that there are 440 66 The premium revenue data come from the 2009 issuers and 750 TPAs. Because the Department NAIC financial statements, also known as ‘‘Blanks,’’ Total Responses: 80,000,000. shares the hour and cost burden for issuers with the where insurers report information about their Frequency of Response: On-going. Department of Labor and the Department of the various lines of business.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Department estimates approximately 70 until March 2012, the Department workflow processes against the new small, 115 medium, and 35 large estimates a one-time administrative cost standards and (2) make appropriate issuers. Similarly, the Department of about $14,000,000 across the industry changes to IT systems and processes. estimates approximately 36 small, 59 and 270,000 burden hours to prepare for With respect to task (1), the medium, and 18 large TPAs. the provisions of these proposed Department estimates about 38,000 regulations. This calculation is made 2011 Burden Estimate burden hours, and an equivalent cost of assuming issuers and TPAs will need to about $1,900,000. The Department While the disclosures in these implement two principal tasks: (1) 67 proposed regulations are not required Develop teams to analyze current calculates these estimates as follows:

TASK 1—ANALYZE CURRENT WORKFLOW AND NEW RULES

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

IT Professionals...... $53.26 36 $1,900 54 $2,900 72 $3,800 Benefits/Sales Professionals...... 41.94 40 1,700 60 2,500 80 3,400 Attorneys ...... 85.44 4 340 6 510 8 680

Total per issuer/TPA ...... 80 3,900 120 5,900 160 7,900

Total for all issuers/TPAs ...... 8,500 420,000 21,000 1,000,000 8,500 450,000

With respect to task (2), the $12,000,000. The Department calculates Department estimates 230,000 burden these estimates as follows: hours, and an equivalent cost of out

TASK 2—IT CHANGES

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

IT Professionals...... $53.26 480 $26,000 720 $38,000 960 $51,000

Total per issuer/TPA ...... 480 26,000 720 38,000 960 51,000

Total for all issuers/TPAs ...... 51,000 2,700,000 125,000 6,700,000 51,000 2,700,000

The Department assumes the total 2012 Burden Estimate electronically distributed, and about one-time administrative burden will be The hour and cost burden for the 7,400,000 SBCs would be distributed in divided equally between 2011 and 2012. collections of information are as paper form. The Department assumes Thus, in 2011, the Department estimates follows: there are no costs associated with a one-time administrative cost of about • The Department estimates that there electronic disclosures, and there are $7,000,000 across the industry and will be about 13,000,000 SBC responses costs only with regard to paper 135,000 burden hours. The Department in 2012. disclosures. assumes issuers and TPAs will incur no • The Department assumes that 38 Task 1: Summary of benefits and other costs in 2011 related to the percent of the SBCs would be sent coverage (not including coverage proposed collection of information. electronically in the group market, and examples)—The estimated hour burden 70 percent of the SBCs would be sent is about 170,000 hours, and the electronically in the individual market. estimated total cost is about $5,900,000. Accordingly, the Department estimates The Department calculates these that about 5,900,000 SBCs would be estimates as follows:

TASK 1—EQUIVALENT COSTS FOR PRODUCING SBCS

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

IT Professionals...... $53.26 1.5 $80 1.5 $80 1.5 $80 Benefits/Sales Professionals...... 41.94 1.5 63 1.5 63 1.5 63 Financial Managers...... 75.32 0.5 38 0.5 38 0.5 38

67 For the purposes of these and other estimates in this section III.E, the Departments again use the assumptions outlined above in section III.A.5.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52465

TASK 1—EQUIVALENT COSTS FOR PRODUCING SBCS—Continued

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

Attorneys ...... 85.44 0.5 43 0.5 43 0.5 43

Total per issuer/TPA ...... 4 220 4 220 4 220

Total for all issuers/TPAs ...... 420 24,000 700 39,000 200 12,000

TASK 1—EQUIVALENT COSTS FOR DISTRIBUTING SBCS

Hourly wage Hours per Total number Total equiva- rate SBC of SBCs Total hours lent cost

Clerical Staff, Individual Market ...... $29.15 0.033 2,700,000 89,000 $2,600,000 Clerical, Group Market ...... 29.15 0.017 4,700,000 80,000 2,300,000

Total ...... 7,400,000 170,000 $4,900,000

TASK 1—COST BURDEN FOR PRINTING SBCS

Cost per SBC Total SBCs Cost burden

Printing Costs ...... $0.12 7,400,000 $890,000

Task 2: Coverage Examples—The about $2,700,000. The Department estimated hour burden is about 40,000 calculates these estimates as follows: hours, and the estimated total cost is

TASK 2—EQUIVALENT COSTS FOR PRODUCING COVERAGE EXAMPLES

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

Total per issuer/ TPA ...... 120 6,700 120 6,700 120 6,700

Total for all issuers/TPAs ...... 13,000 710,000 21,000 1,200,000 6,400 350,000

TASK 2—COST BURDEN FOR PRINTING COVERAGE EXAMPLES

Printing cost Total CEs Total cost per CE printed burden

Printing Costs ...... $0.06 7,400,000 $440,000

Task 3: Glossary Requests—The distributing paper SBCs, plus an Department estimates a one-time Department assumes that in 2012, additional cost burden of $0.49 for each administrative cost of about $14,000,000 issuers and TPAs will begin responding glossary (including $0.44 for first-class across the industry and a total of to glossary requests to covered postage and $0.05 for supply costs). 270,000 burden hours, and assumes this individuals, and that 2.5% of covered Accordingly, in 2012, the Department burden will be equally divided between individuals, who receive paper SBCs, estimates a total cost of about $240,000 2011 and 2012. Thus, in 2012, the will request glossaries. The Departments and 4,300 burden hours associated with Department estimates a one-time further estimate that the burden and about 190,000 glossary requests. administrative cost of about $7,000,000 cost of providing the glossaries to be Task 4: One-Time Administrative across the industry and 135,000 burden 2.5% of the burden and cost of Costs: As mentioned above, the hours.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

The total 2012 burden estimate is and that 2% of covered individuals will providing the glossaries to be 5% of the about $16,000,000. The total number of receive such notice. The Department burden and cost of distributing paper burden hours is 350,000. further estimates that the burden and SBCs, plus an additional cost burden of cost of providing the notices to be 2% 2013 Burden Estimate $0.49 for each glossary (including $0.44 of the combined burden and cost of the for first-class postage and $0.05 for Task 1: Summary of benefits and SBCs including the coverage examples, supply costs). Accordingly, in 2013, the coverage (not including coverage plus an additional cost burden for $0.49 Department estimates a total cost of examples)—The number of SBC for each paper notice (including $0.44 $470,000 and 8,500 burden hours responses is assumed to remain for first-class postage and $0.05 for associated with 370,000 glossary constant. Thus, in 2013, the Department supply costs). Accordingly, in 2013, the requests. again estimates a total cost of about Department estimates a total cost of $5,900,000 and 170,000 burden hours about $300,000 and 4,200 burden hours Task 5: Maintenance Administrative for SBCs (not including coverage associated with about 260,000 notices of Costs—In 2013, the Departments assume examples). modification. that issuers and TPAs will need to make Task 2: Coverage Examples—In 2013, Task 4: Glossary Requests—The updates to address changes in the Department again estimates a total Department assumes that in 2013, standards, and, thus, incur 15% of the cost of about $2,700,000 and 40,320 issuers and TPAs will again respond to one-time administrative burden. burden hours for coverage examples. glossary requests to covered individuals, Accordingly, the estimated hour burden Task 3: Notices of Modifications—The and that 5% of covered individuals, is about 40,000 hours, and the estimated Department assumes that in 2013, who receive paper SBCs, will request total cost is about $2,000,000. The issuers will begin sending notices of glossaries. The Department further Departments calculate these estimates as modifications to covered individuals, estimates that the burden and cost of follows:

Small issuer/TPA Medium issuer/TPA Large issuer/TPA Hourly wage rate Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Hours cost Hours cost Hours cost

IT Professionals ...... $53.26 46.2 $2,500 69.3 $3,700 92.4 $4,900 Benefits/Sales Profes- sionals ...... 41.94 33.6 1,800 50.4 2,700 67.2 3,600 Attorneys ...... 85.44 4.2 220 6.3 340 8.4 450

Total per issuer/ TPA ...... 84 4,500 126 6,700 168 8,900

Total for all issuers/TPAs ...... 8,900 470,000 22,000 1,100,000 8,900 470,000

The total 2013 cost estimate is about ReductionActof1995/PRAL/ process of their formulation and $11,000,000. The total number of list.asp#TopOfPage or e-mail your implementation of policies that have burden hours is about 260,000 hours. request, including your address, phone ‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on the The Department notes that persons number, OMB number, and CMS States, the relationship between the are not required to respond to, and document identifier, to national government and States, or on generally are not subject to any penalty [email protected], or call the the distribution of power and for failing to comply with, an ICR unless Reports Clearance Office at 410–786– responsibilities among the various the ICR has a valid OMB control 1326. levels of government. Federal agencies number. If you comment on this information promulgating regulations that have The 2012–2013 paperwork burden collection and recordkeeping federalism implications must consult estimates are summarized as follows: requirements, please do either of the with State and local officials and Type of Review: New collection. following: describe the extent of their consultation Agency: Department of Health and 1. Submit your comments and the nature of the concerns of State Human Services. electronically as specified in the and local officials in the preamble to the Title: Affordable Care Act Uniform ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule; regulation. Explanation of Coverage Documents. or In the Departments’ view, these OMB Number: 0938–New. Affected Public: Business; State, 2. Submit your comments to the proposed rules have federalism Local, or Tribal Governments. Office of Information and Regulatory implications, because it would have Total Respondents: 333. Affairs, Office of Management and direct effects on the States, the Total Responses: 13,000,000. Budget, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, relationship between national Frequency of Response: On-going. CMS–9982–P. Fax: 202–395–5806; or E- governments and States, or on the Estimated Total Annual Burden mail: [email protected]. distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of Hours: 310,000 hours. E. Federalism Statement—Department Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: government relating to the disclosure of of Labor and Department of Health and $1,600,000. health insurance coverage information To obtain copies of the supporting Human Services to consumers. Under these proposed statement and any related forms for the Executive Order 13132 outlines rules, all group health plans and health proposed paperwork collections fundamental principles of federalism, insurance issuers offering group or referenced above, access CMS’ Web site and requires the adherence to specific individual health insurance coverage, at http://www.cms.gov/Paperwork criteria by Federal agencies in the including self-funded non-Federal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52467

governmental plans as defined in including consulting with, and List of Subjects section 2791 of the PHS Act, would be attending conferences of, the National 26 CFR Part 54 required to follow uniform standards for Association of Insurance Commissioners compiling and providing a summary of and consulting with State insurance Excise taxes, Health care, Health benefits and coverage to consumers. officials on an individual basis. It is insurance, Pensions, Reporting and Such Federal standards developed expected that the Departments will act recordkeeping requirements. under PHS Act section 2715(a) would in a similar fashion in enforcing the 29 CFR Part 2590 preempt any related State standards that Affordable Care Act, including the require a summary of benefits and provisions of section 2715 of the PHS Continuation coverage, Disclosure, coverage that provides less information Act. Throughout the process of Employee benefit plans, Group health to consumers than that required to be developing these proposed regulations, plans, Health care, Health insurance, provided under PHS Act section Medical child support, Reporting and to the extent feasible within the specific 2715(a). recordkeeping requirements. In general, through section 514, preemption provisions of HIPAA as it ERISA supersedes State laws to the applies to the Affordable Care Act, the 45 CFR Part 147 extent that they relate to any covered Departments have attempted to balance Health care, Health insurance, employee benefit plan, and preserves the States’ interests in regulating health Reporting and recordkeeping State laws that regulate insurance, insurance issuers, and Congress’ intent requirements, and State regulation of banking, or securities. While ERISA to provide uniform minimum health insurance. prohibits States from regulating a plan protections to consumers in every State. as an insurance or investment company By doing so, it is the Departments’ view Sarah Hall Ingram, or bank, the preemption provisions of that they have complied with the Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and section 731 of ERISA and section 2724 requirements of Executive Order 13132. Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service. of the PHS Act (implemented in 29 CFR Signed this 15th day of August, 2011. Pursuant to the requirements set forth 2590.731(a) and 45 CFR 146.143(a)) in section 8(a) of Executive Order Phyllis C. Borzi, apply so that the HIPAA requirements Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits (including those of the Affordable Care 13132, and by the signatures affixed to this proposed rule, the Departments Security Administration, Department of Act) are not to be ‘‘construed to Labor. certify that the Employee Benefits supersede any provision of State law Dated: July 28, 2011. which establishes, implements, or Security Administration and the Centers Donald Berwick, continues in effect any standard or for Medicare & Medicaid Services have requirement solely relating to health complied with the requirements of Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. insurance issuers in connection with Executive Order 13132 for the attached group health insurance coverage except proposed rule in a meaningful and Dated: August 9, 2011. to the extent that such standard or timely manner. Kathleen Sebelius, requirement prevents the application of Secretary, Department of Health and Human a requirement’’ of a Federal standard. IV. Statutory Authority Services. The conference report accompanying The Department of the Treasury DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY HIPAA indicates that this is intended to proposed regulations are proposed to be Internal Revenue Service be the ‘‘narrowest’’ preemption of State adopted pursuant to the authority laws (See House Conf. Rep. No. 104– contained in sections 7805 and 9833 of 26 CFR Chapter I 736, at 205, reprinted in 1996 U.S. Code the Code. Cong. & Admin. News 2018). States may Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 54 and 602 continue to apply State law The Department of Labor proposed are proposed to be amended as follows: requirements except to the extent that regulations are proposed to be adopted such requirements prevent the pursuant to the authority contained in PART 54—PENSION EXCISE TAXES application of the Affordable Care Act 29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135, 1161–1168, Paragraph 1. The authority citation requirements that are the subject of this 1169, 1181–1183, 1181 note, 1185, for Part 54 is amended by adding an rulemaking. Accordingly, States have 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, entry for § 54.9815–2715 in numerical significant latitude to impose 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Public order to read in part as follows: requirements on health insurance Law 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * issuers that are more restrictive than the 401(b), Public Law 105–200, 112 Stat. Federal law. However, under these Section 54.9815–2715 also issued under 26 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. 512(d), U.S.C. 9833. proposed rules, a State would not be Public Law 110–343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. allowed to impose a requirement that 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Public Law Par. 2. Section 54.9815–2715 is added modifies the summary of benefits and 111–148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by to read as follows: coverage required to be provided under Public Law 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029; PHS Act section 2715(a), because it § 54.9815–2715 Summary of benefits and would prevent the application of this Secretary of Labor’s Order 3–2010, 75 coverage and uniform glossary. proposed rule’s uniform disclosure FR 55354 (September 10, 2010). (a) Summary of benefits and requirement. The Department of Health and Human coverage—(1) In general. A group health In compliance with the requirement Services proposed regulations are plan (and its administrator as defined in of Executive Order 13132 that agencies proposed to be adopted pursuant to the section 3(16)(A) of ERISA), and a health examine closely any policies that may authority contained in sections 2701 insurance issuer offering group health have federalism implications or limit through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the insurance coverage, is required to the policy making discretion of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through provide a written summary of benefits States, the Departments have engaged in 300gg–63, 300gg–91, and 300gg–92), as and coverage (SBC) for each benefit efforts to consult with and work amended. package without charge to entities and cooperatively with affected States, individuals described in this paragraph

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(a)(1) in accordance with the rules of distribute written application materials (C) With respect to a group health this section. for enrollment, the SBC must be plan that offers multiple benefit (i) By a group health insurance issuer distributed no later than the first date packages, the plan or issuer is required to a group health plan—(A) A health the participant is eligible to enroll in to provide a new SBC automatically insurance issuer offering group health coverage for the participant or any upon renewal only with respect to the insurance coverage must provide the beneficiaries. benefit package in which a participant SBC to a group health plan (or its (C) If there is any change to the or beneficiary is enrolled; SBCs are not sponsor) upon application or request for information required to be in the SBC required to be provided automatically information about the health coverage as before the first day of coverage, the plan with respect to benefit packages in soon as practicable following the or issuer must update and provide a which the participant or beneficiary are request, but in no event later than seven current SBC to a participant or not enrolled. However, if a participant days following the request. If an SBC is beneficiary no later than the first day of or beneficiary requests an SBC with provided upon request for information coverage. respect to another benefit package (or about health coverage and the plan (or (D) The plan or issuer must provide more than one other benefit package) for its sponsor) subsequently applies for the SBC to special enrollees (as which the participant or beneficiary is health coverage, a second SBC must be described in § 54.9801–6) within seven eligible, the SBC (or SBCs, in the case provided under this paragraph days of a request for enrollment of a request for SBCs relating to more (a)(1)(i)(A) only if the information pursuant to a special enrollment right. than one benefit package) must be required to be in the SBC has changed. (E) If the plan or issuer requires provided upon request in accordance (B) If there is any change in the participants or beneficiaries to renew in with the rules of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of information required to be in the SBC order to maintain coverage (for example, this section, which requires the SBC to before the coverage is offered, or before for a succeeding plan year), the plan or be provided as soon as practicable, but the first day of coverage, the issuer must issuer must provide a new SBC when in no event later than seven days update and provide a current SBC to the the coverage is renewed. following the request. plan (or its sponsor) no later than the (1) If written application is required (2) Content—(i) In general. The SBC date of the offer (or no later than the first for renewal (in either paper or electronic must include the following: day of coverage, as applicable). form), the SBC must be provided no (A) Uniform definitions of standard (C) If the issuer renews or reissues the later than the date the materials are insurance terms and medical terms so policy, certificate, or contract of distributed. that consumers may compare health insurance (for example, for a succeeding (2) If renewal is automatic, the SBC coverage and understand the terms of policy year), the issuer must provide a must be provided no later than 30 days (or exceptions to) their coverage; new SBC when the policy, certificate, or prior to the first day of coverage under (B) A description of the coverage, contract is renewed or reissued. including cost sharing, for each category (1) In the case of renewal or the new plan year. of benefits identified by the Secretary in reissuance, if written application is (F) A plan or issuer must provide the guidance; required for renewal (in either paper or SBC to participants or beneficiaries (C) The exceptions, reductions, and electronic form), the SBC must be upon request, as soon as practicable, but limitations of the coverage; provided no later than the date the in no event later than seven days materials are distributed. following the request. (D) The cost-sharing provisions of the (2) If renewal or reissuance is (iii) Special rules to prevent coverage, including deductible, automatic, the SBC must be provided no unnecessary duplication with respect to coinsurance, and copayment later than 30 days prior to the first day group health coverage—(A) An entity obligations; of the new policy year. required to provide an SBC under (E) The renewability and continuation (D) If a group health plan (or its paragraph (a)(1) of this section with of coverage provisions; sponsor) requests an SBC from a health respect to an individual satisfies that (F) Coverage examples, in accordance insurance issuer offering group health requirement if another party provides with the rules of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of insurance coverage, it must be provided the SBC, but only to the extent that the this section; as soon as practicable, but in no event SBC is timely and complete in (G) With respect to coverage later than seven days following the accordance with the other rules of this beginning on or after January 1, 2014, a request for an SBC. section. Therefore, for example, in the statement about whether the plan or (ii) By a group health insurance issuer case of a group health plan funded coverage provides minimum essential and a group health plan to participants through an insurance policy, the plan coverage as defined under section and beneficiaries—(A) A group health satisfies the requirement to provide an 5000A(f) and whether the plan’s or plan (including its administrator, as SBC with respect to an individual if the coverage’s share of the total allowed defined under section 3(16) of ERISA), issuer provides a timely and complete costs of benefits provided under the and a health insurance issuer offering SBC to the individual. plan or coverage meets applicable group health insurance coverage, must (B) If a participant and any requirements; provide an SBC to a participant or beneficiaries are known to reside at the (H) A statement that the SBC is only beneficiary (as defined under sections same address, and a single SBC is a summary and that the plan document, 3(7) and 3(8) of ERISA), and consistent provided to that address, the policy, or certificate of insurance should with the rules of paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of requirement to provide the SBC is be consulted to determine the governing this section) with respect to each benefit satisfied with respect to all individuals contractual provisions of the coverage; package offered by the plan or issuer for residing at that address. If a (I) Contact information for questions which the participant or beneficiary is beneficiary’s last known address is and obtaining a copy of the plan eligible. different than the participant’s last document or the insurance policy, (B) The SBC must be provided as part known address, a separate SBC is certificate, or contract of insurance of any written application materials that required to be provided to the (such as a telephone number for are distributed by the plan or issuer for beneficiary at the beneficiary’s last customer service and an Internet enrollment. If the plan does not known address. address for obtaining a copy of the plan

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52469

document or the insurance policy, pages in length, and not include print specified by the Secretary in guidance, certificate, or contract of insurance); smaller than 12-point font. for the following health-coverage-related (J) For plans and issuers that maintain (4) Form—(i) An SBC provided by an terms and medical terms: one or more networks of providers, an issuer offering group health insurance (i) Allowed amount, appeal, balance Internet address (or similar contact coverage to a plan (or its sponsor), may billing, co-insurance, complications of information) for obtaining a list of be provided in paper form. pregnancy, co-payment, deductible, network providers; Alternatively, the SBC may be provided durable medical equipment, emergency (K) For plans and issuers that use a electronically (such as e-mail or an medical condition, emergency medical formulary in providing prescription Internet posting) if the following three transportation, emergency room care, drug coverage, an Internet address (or conditions are satisfied— emergency services, excluded services, similar contact information) for (A) The format is readily accessible by grievance, habilitation services, health obtaining information on prescription the plan (or its sponsor); insurance, home health care, hospice drug coverage; (B) The SBC is provided in paper form services, hospitalization, hospital (L) An Internet address for obtaining free of charge upon request, and outpatient care, in-network co- the uniform glossary, as described in (C) If the electronic form is an Internet insurance, in-network co-payment, paragraph (c) of this section; and posting, the issuer timely advises the medically necessary, network, non- (M) Premiums (or in the case of a self- plan (or its sponsor) in paper form or e- preferred provider, out-of-network co- insured group health plan, cost of mail that the documents are available on insurance, out-of-network co-payment, coverage). the Internet and provides the Internet out-of-pocket limit, physician services, (ii) Coverage examples. The SBC must address. plan, preauthorization, preferred include coverage examples that (ii) An SBC provided by a plan or provider, premium, prescription drug illustrate benefits provided under the issuer to a participant or beneficiary coverage, prescription drugs, primary plan or coverage for common benefits may be provided in paper form. care physician, primary care provider, scenarios (including pregnancy and Alternatively, the SBC may be provided provider, reconstructive surgery, serious or chronic medical conditions) electronically if the requirements of 29 rehabilitation services, skilled nursing that are identified by the Secretary in CFR 2520.104b–1 are met. care, specialist, usual customary and accordance with the following: (5) Language. A group health plan or reasonable (UCR), and urgent care; and (A) Number of examples. The health insurance issuer must provide (ii) Such other terms as the Secretary Secretary may identify up to six the SBC in a culturally and determines are important to define so coverage examples that may be required linguistically appropriate manner. For that individuals and employers may in an SBC. purposes of this paragraph (a)(5), a plan compare and understand the terms of (B) Benefits scenarios. For purposes of or issuer is considered to provide the coverage and medical benefits this section, a benefits scenario is a SBC in a culturally and linguistically (including any exceptions to those hypothetical situation, consisting of a appropriate manner if the thresholds benefits), as specified in guidance. sample treatment plan for a specified and standards of § 54.9815–2719T(e) are (3) Appearance. A group health plan, medical condition during a specific met as applied to the SBC. and a health insurance issuer, must period of time, based on recognized (b) Notice of modifications. If a group provide the uniform glossary with the clinical practice guidelines available health plan, or health insurance issuer appearance authorized in guidance, through the National Guideline offering group health insurance ensuring that the uniform glossary is Clearinghouse, Agency for Healthcare coverage, makes any material presented in a uniform format and Research and Quality. The Secretary modification (as defined under section utilizes terminology understandable by will specify, in guidance, the types of 102 of ERISA) in any of the terms of the the average plan enrollee. services, dates of service, applicable plan or coverage that would affect the (4) Form and manner. A plan or issuer billing codes, and allowed charges for content of the SBC, that is not reflected must make the uniform glossary each claim in the benefits scenario. in the most recently provided SBC, and described in this paragraph (c) available (C) Demonstration of benefit provided. that occurs other than in connection upon request, in either paper or To demonstrate benefits provided under with a renewal or reissuance of electronic form (as requested), within the plan or coverage, a plan or issuer coverage, the plan or issuer must seven days of the request. (Under the simulates how claims would be provide notice of the modification to rules of paragraph (a) of this section, the processed under the scenarios provided enrollees not later than 60 days prior to form authorized in guidance for the SBC by the Secretary to generate an estimate the date on which such modification will disclose to participants and of cost sharing a consumer could expect will become effective. The notice of beneficiaries their rights to request a to pay under the benefit package. The modification must be provided in a form copy of the uniform glossary.) demonstration of benefits will take into that is consistent with the rules of (d) Preemption. With respect to the account any cost sharing, excluded paragraph (a)(4) of this section. standards for providing an SBC required benefits, and other limitations on (c) Uniform glossary—(1) In general. under paragraph (a) of this section, State coverage, as described by the Secretary A group health plan, and a health laws that require a health insurance in guidance. insurance issuer offering group health issuer to provide an SBC that supplies (3) Appearance. A group health plan insurance coverage, must make less information than required under and a health insurance issuer must available to participants and paragraph (a) of this section are provide an SBC as a stand-alone beneficiaries the uniform glossary preempted. document in the form authorized by the described in paragraph (c)(2) of this (e) Failure to provide. A group health Secretary and completed in accordance section in accordance with the plan or health insurance issuer that with the instructions for completing the appearance and format requirements of willfully fails to provide information SBC that are authorized by the Secretary paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this required under this section to a in guidance. The SBC must be presented section. participant or beneficiary is subject to a in a uniform format, use terminology (2) Health-coverage-related terms and fine of not more than $1,000 for each understandable by the average plan medical terms. The uniform glossary such failure. A failure with respect to enrollee, not exceed four double-sided must provide uniform definitions, each participant or beneficiary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

constitutes a separate offense for insurance coverage, is required to which the participant or beneficiary is purposes of this paragraph (e). provide a written summary of benefits eligible. (f) Applicability date. This section is and coverage (SBC) for each benefit (B) The SBC must be provided as part applicable beginning March 23, 2012. package without charge to entities and of any written application materials that See § 54.9815–1251T(d), providing that individuals described in this paragraph are distributed by the plan or issuer for this section applies to grandfathered (a)(1) in accordance with the rules of enrollment. If the plan does not health plans. this section. distribute written application materials (i) By a group health insurance issuer for enrollment, the SBC must be PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS to a group health plan—(A) A health distributed no later than the first date UNDER THE PAPERWORK insurance issuer offering group health the participant is eligible to enroll in REDUCTION ACT insurance coverage must provide the coverage for the participant or any Par. 3. The authority citation for part SBC to a group health plan (or its beneficiaries. (C) If there is any change to the 602 continues to read in part as follows: sponsor) upon application or request for information about the health coverage as information required to be in the SBC Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * soon as practicable following the before the first day of coverage, the plan Par. 4. Section 602.101(b) is amended request, but in no event later than seven or issuer must update and provide a by adding the following entry in days following the request. If an SBC is current SBC to a participant or numerical order to the table to read as provided upon request for information beneficiary no later than the first day of follows: about health coverage and the plan (or coverage. (D) The plan or issuer must provide § 602.101 OMB Control numbers. its sponsor) subsequently applies for health coverage, a second SBC must be the SBC to special enrollees (as * * * * * provided under this paragraph described in § 2590.701–6 of this Part) (b) * * * (a)(1)(i)(A) only if the information within seven days of a request for enrollment pursuant to a special CFR part or section where Current OMB required to be in the SBC has changed. (B) If there is any change in the enrollment right. identified and described control No. (E) If the plan or issuer requires information required to be in the SBC participants or beneficiaries to renew in before the coverage is offered, or before order to maintain coverage (for example, ***** the first day of coverage, the issuer must for a succeeding plan year), the plan or 54.9815–2715 ...... 1545– update and provide a current SBC to the issuer must provide a new SBC when plan (or its sponsor) no later than the ***** the coverage is renewed. date of the offer (or no later than the first (1) If written application is required day of coverage, as applicable). DEPARTMENT OF LABOR for renewal (in either paper or electronic (C) If the issuer renews or reissues the form), the SBC must be provided no Employee Benefits Security policy, certificate, or contract of Administration later than the date the materials are insurance (for example, for a succeeding distributed. 29 CFR Chapter XXV policy year), the issuer must provide a (2) If renewal is automatic, the SBC new SBC when the policy, certificate, or must be provided no later than 30 days 29 CFR part 2590 is proposed to be contract is renewed or reissued. amended as follows: prior to the first day of coverage under (1) In the case of renewal or the new plan year. PART 2590—RULES AND reissuance, if written application is (F) A plan or issuer must provide the REGULATIONS FOR GROUP HEALTH required for renewal (in either paper or SBC to participants or beneficiaries PLANS electronic form), the SBC must be upon request, as soon as practicable, but provided no later than the date the in no event later than seven days 1. The authority citation for part 2590 materials are distributed. following the request. continues to read as follows: (2) If renewal or reissuance is (iii) Special rules to prevent Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135, automatic, the SBC must be provided no unnecessary duplication with respect to 1161–1168, 1169, 1181–1183, 1181 note, later than 30 days prior to the first day group health coverage—(A) An entity 1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1185d, 1191, 1191a, of the new policy year. required to provide an SBC under 1191b, and 1191c; sec. 101(g), Pub. L.104– (D) If a group health plan (or its paragraph (a)(1) of this section with 191, 110 Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Pub. L. 105– sponsor) requests an SBC from a health respect to an individual satisfies that 200, 112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); sec. insurance issuer offering group health requirement if another party provides 512(d), Pub. L. 110–343, 122 Stat. 3881; sec. insurance coverage, it must be provided 1001, 1201, and 1562(e), Pub. L. 111–148, the SBC, but only to the extent that the 124 Stat. 119, as amended by Pub. L. 111– as soon as practicable, but in no event SBC is timely and complete in 152, 124 Stat. 1029; Secretary of Labor’s later than seven days following the accordance with the other rules of this Order 3–2010, 75 FR 55354 (September 10, request for an SBC. section. Therefore, for example, in the 2010). (ii) By a group health insurance issuer case of a group health plan funded and a group health plan to participants through an insurance policy, the plan Subpart C—Other Requirements and beneficiaries—(A) A group health satisfies the requirement to provide an 2. Section 2590.715–2715 is added to plan (including its administrator, as SBC with respect to an individual if the Subpart C to read as follows: defined under section 3(16) of ERISA), issuer provides a timely and complete and a health insurance issuer offering SBC to the individual. § 2590.715–2715 Summary of benefits and group health insurance coverage, must (B) If a participant and any coverage and uniform glossary. provide an SBC to a participant or beneficiaries are known to reside at the (a) Summary of benefits and beneficiary (as defined under sections same address, and a single SBC is coverage—(1) In general. A group health 3(7) and 3(8) of ERISA), and consistent provided to that address, the plan (and its administrator as defined in with the rules of paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of requirement to provide the SBC is section 3(16)(A) of ERISA), and a health this section) with respect to each benefit satisfied with respect to all individuals insurance issuer offering group health package offered by the plan or issuer for residing at that address. If a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52471

beneficiary’s last known address is document or the insurance policy, SBC that are authorized by the Secretary different than the participant’s last certificate, or contract of insurance in guidance. The SBC must be presented known address, a separate SBC is (such as a telephone number for in a uniform format, use terminology required to be provided to the customer service and an Internet understandable by the average plan beneficiary at the beneficiary’s last address for obtaining a copy of the plan enrollee, not exceed four double-sided known address. document or the insurance policy, pages in length, and not include print (C) With respect to a group health certificate, or contract of insurance); smaller than 12-point font. plan that offers multiple benefit (J) For plans and issuers that maintain (4) Form—(i) An SBC provided by an packages, the plan or issuer is required one or more networks of providers, an issuer offering group health insurance to provide a new SBC automatically Internet address (or similar contact coverage to a plan (or its sponsor), may upon renewal only with respect to the information) for obtaining a list of be provided in paper form. benefit package in which a participant network providers; Alternatively, the SBC may be provided or beneficiary is enrolled; SBCs are not (K) For plans and issuers that use a electronically (such as e-mail or an required to be provided automatically formulary in providing prescription Internet posting) if the following three with respect to benefit packages in drug coverage, an Internet address (or conditions are satisfied— which the participant or beneficiary are similar contact information) for (A) The format is readily accessible by not enrolled. However, if a participant obtaining information on prescription the plan (or its sponsor); or beneficiary requests an SBC with drug coverage; (B) The SBC is provided in paper form respect to another benefit package (or (L) An Internet address for obtaining free of charge upon request, and more than one other benefit package) for the uniform glossary, as described in (C) If the electronic form is an Internet which the participant or beneficiary is paragraph (c) of this section; and posting, the issuer timely advises the eligible, the SBC (or SBCs, in the case (M) Premiums (or in the case of a self- plan (or its sponsor) in paper form or e- of a request for SBCs relating to more insured group health plan, cost of mail that the documents are available on than one benefit package) must be coverage). the Internet and provides the Internet provided upon request in accordance (ii) Coverage examples. The SBC must address. (ii) An SBC provided by a plan or with the rules of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of include coverage examples that issuer to a participant or beneficiary this section, which requires the SBC to illustrate benefits provided under the may be provided in paper form. be provided as soon as practicable, but plan or coverage for common benefits Alternatively, the SBC may be provided in no event later than seven days scenarios (including pregnancy and electronically if the requirements of 29 following the request. serious or chronic medical conditions) (2) Content—(i) In general. The SBC that are identified by the Secretary in CFR 2520.104b–1 are met. (5) Language. A group health plan or must include the following: accordance with the following: (A) Uniform definitions of standard (A) Number of examples. The health insurance issuer must provide insurance terms and medical terms so Secretary may identify up to six the SBC in a culturally and that consumers may compare health coverage examples that may be required linguistically appropriate manner. For coverage and understand the terms of in an SBC. purposes of this paragraph (a)(5), a plan (or exceptions to) their coverage; (B) Benefits scenarios. For purposes of or issuer is considered to provide the (B) A description of the coverage, this section, a benefits scenario is a SBC in a culturally and linguistically including cost sharing, for each category hypothetical situation, consisting of a appropriate manner if the thresholds of benefits identified by the Secretary in sample treatment plan for a specified and standards of § 2590.715–2719(e) of guidance; medical condition during a specific this Part are met as applied to the SBC. (C) The exceptions, reductions, and period of time, based on recognized (b) Notice of modifications. If a group limitations of the coverage; clinical practice guidelines available health plan, or health insurance issuer (D) The cost-sharing provisions of the through the National Guideline offering group health insurance coverage, including deductible, Clearinghouse, Agency for Healthcare coverage, makes any material coinsurance, and copayment Research and Quality. The Secretary modification (as defined under section obligations; will specify, in guidance, the types of 102 of ERISA) in any of the terms of the (E) The renewability and continuation services, dates of service, applicable plan or coverage that would affect the of coverage provisions; billing codes, and allowed charges for content of the SBC, that is not reflected (F) Coverage examples, in accordance each claim in the benefits scenario. in the most recently provided SBC, and with the rules of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of (C) Demonstration of benefit provided. that occurs other than in connection this section; To demonstrate benefits provided under with a renewal or reissuance of (G) With respect to coverage the plan or coverage, a plan or issuer coverage, the plan or issuer must beginning on or after January 1, 2014, a simulates how claims would be provide notice of the modification to statement about whether the plan or processed under the scenarios provided enrollees not later than 60 days prior to coverage provides minimum essential by the Secretary to generate an estimate the date on which such modification coverage as defined under section of cost sharing a consumer could expect will become effective. The notice of 5000A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code to pay under the benefit package. The modification must be provided in a form and whether the plan’s or coverage’s demonstration of benefits will take into that is consistent with the rules of share of the total allowed costs of account any cost sharing, excluded paragraph (a)(4) of this section. benefits provided under the plan or benefits, and other limitations on (c) Uniform glossary—(1) In general. coverage meets applicable requirements; coverage, as described by the Secretary A group health plan, and a health (H) A statement that the SBC is only in guidance. insurance issuer offering group health a summary and that the plan document, (3) Appearance. A group health plan insurance coverage, must make policy, or certificate of insurance should and a health insurance issuer must available to participants and be consulted to determine the governing provide an SBC as a stand-alone beneficiaries the uniform glossary contractual provisions of the coverage; document in the form authorized by the described in paragraph (c)(2) of this (I) Contact information for questions Secretary and completed in accordance section in accordance with the and obtaining a copy of the plan with the instructions for completing the appearance and format requirements of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52472 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this information required under this section plan (or its sponsor) no later than the section. to a participant or beneficiary is subject date of the offer (or no later than the first (2) Health-coverage-related terms and to a fine of not more than $1,000 for day of coverage, as applicable). medical terms. The uniform glossary each such failure. A failure with respect (C) If the issuer renews or reissues the must provide uniform definitions, to each participant or beneficiary policy, certificate, or contract of specified by the Secretary in guidance, constitutes a separate offense for insurance (for example, for a succeeding for the following health-coverage-related purposes of this paragraph (e). policy year), the issuer must provide a terms and medical terms: (f) Applicability date. This section is new SBC when the policy, certificate, or (i) Allowed amount, appeal, balance applicable beginning March 23, 2012. contract is renewed or reissued. billing, co-insurance, complications of See § 2590.715–1251(d) of this Part, (1) In the case of renewal or pregnancy, co-payment, deductible, providing that this section applies to reissuance, if written application is durable medical equipment, emergency grandfathered health plans. required for renewal (in either paper or medical condition, emergency medical electronic form), the SBC must be transportation, emergency room care, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND provided no later than the date the emergency services, excluded services, HUMAN SERVICES materials are distributed. grievance, habilitation services, health 45 CFR Subtitle A (2) If renewal or reissuance is insurance, home health care, hospice automatic, the SBC must be provided no The Department of Health and Human services, hospitalization, hospital later than 30 days prior to the first day Services proposes to amend 45 CFR part outpatient care, in-network co- of the new policy year. 147 as follows: insurance, in-network co-payment, (D) If a group health plan (or its medically necessary, network, non- PART 147—HEALTH INSURANCE sponsor) requests an SBC from a health preferred provider, out-of-network co- REFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE insurance issuer offering group health insurance, out-of-network co-payment, GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL HEALTH insurance coverage, it must be provided out-of-pocket limit, physician services, INSURANCE MARKETS as soon as practicable, but in no event plan, preauthorization, preferred later than seven days following the provider, premium, prescription drug 1. The authority citation for part 147 request for an SBC. coverage, prescription drugs, primary continues to read as follows: (ii) By a group health insurance issuer care physician, primary care provider, Authority: Sections 2710 through 2763, and a group health plan to participants provider, reconstructive surgery, 2791, and 2792 of the Public Health Service and beneficiaries—(A) A group health rehabilitation services, skilled nursing Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg–63, plan (including its administrator, as care, specialist, usual customary and 300gg–91, and 300gg–92), as amended. defined under section 3(16) of ERISA), reasonable (UCR), and urgent care; and 2. Add § 147.200 to read as follows: and a health insurance issuer offering (ii) Such other terms as the Secretary group health insurance coverage, must determines are important to define so § 147.200 Summary of benefits and provide an SBC to a participant or that individuals and employers may coverage and uniform glossary. beneficiary (as defined under sections compare and understand the terms of (a) Summary of benefits and 3(7) and 3(8) of ERISA), and consistent coverage and medical benefits coverage—(1) In general. A group health with the rules of paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of (including any exceptions to those plan (and its administrator as defined in this section) with respect to each benefit benefits), as specified in guidance. section 3(16)(A) of ERISA), and a health package offered by the plan or issuer for (3) Appearance. A group health plan, insurance issuer offering group or which the participant or beneficiary is and a health insurance issuer, must individual health insurance coverage, is eligible. provide the uniform glossary with the required to provide a written summary (B) The SBC must be provided as part appearance authorized in guidance, of benefits and coverage (SBC) for each of any written application materials that ensuring that the uniform glossary is benefit package without charge to are distributed by the plan or issuer for presented in a uniform format and entities and individuals described in enrollment. If the plan does not utilizes terminology understandable by this paragraph (a)(1) in accordance with distribute written application materials the average plan enrollee. the rules of this section. for enrollment, the SBC must be (4) Form and manner. A plan or issuer (i) By a group health insurance issuer distributed no later than the first date must make the uniform glossary to a group health plan—(A) A health the participant is eligible to enroll in described in this paragraph (c) available insurance issuer offering group health coverage for the participant or any upon request, in either paper or insurance coverage must provide the beneficiaries. electronic form (as requested), within SBC to a group health plan (or its (C) If there is any change to the seven days of the request. (Under the sponsor) upon application or request for information required to be in the SBC rules of paragraph (a) of this section, the information about the health coverage as before the first day of coverage, the plan form authorized in guidance for the SBC soon as practicable following the or issuer must update and provide a will disclose to participants and request, but in no event later than seven current SBC to a participant or beneficiaries their rights to request a days following the request. If an SBC is beneficiary no later than the first day of copy of the uniform glossary.) provided upon request for information coverage. (d) Preemption. See § 2590.731 of this about health coverage and the plan (or (D) The plan or issuer must provide Part. In addition, with respect to the its sponsor) subsequently applies for the SBC to special enrollees (as standards for providing an SBC required health coverage, a second SBC must be described in 45 CFR 146.117) within under paragraph (a) of this section, State provided under this paragraph seven days of a request for enrollment laws that require a health insurance (a)(1)(i)(A) only if the information pursuant to a special enrollment right. issuer to provide an SBC that supplies required to be in the SBC has changed. (E) If the plan or issuer requires less information than required under (B) If there is any change in the participants or beneficiaries to renew in paragraph (a) of this section are information required to be in the SBC order to maintain coverage (for example, preempted. before the coverage is offered, or before for a succeeding plan year), the plan or (e) Failure to provide. A group health the first day of coverage, the issuer must issuer must provide a new SBC when plan that willfully fails to provide update and provide a current SBC to the the coverage is renewed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52473

(1) If written application is required (iv) By a health insurance issuer coverage is being made for more than for renewal (in either paper or electronic offering individual health insurance one individual); all those individuals form), the SBC must be provided no coverage—(A) Individuals prior to are known to reside at the same address; later than the date the materials are coverage. A health insurance issuer and a single SBC is provided to that distributed. offering individual health insurance address, then the requirement to (2) If renewal is automatic, the SBC coverage must provide an SBC to an provide the SBC is satisfied with respect must be provided no later than 30 days individual upon receiving an to all individuals residing at that prior to the first day of coverage under application for, or a request for address. If an individual’s last known the new plan year. information about, any health insurance address is different than the last known (F) A plan or issuer must provide the policy, as soon as practicable following address of the policyholder, the issuer is SBC to participants or beneficiaries the application or request, but in no required to provide an SBC to the upon request, as soon as practicable, but event later than seven days following individual at the individual’s last in no event later than seven days the application or request. known address. following the request. (1) If an SBC is provided upon request (2) Content—(i) In general. The SBC (iii) Special rules to prevent for information about a particular health must include the following: unnecessary duplication with respect to insurance policy and the individual (A) Uniform definitions of standard group health coverage—(A) An entity subsequently submits an application for insurance terms and medical terms so required to provide an SBC under the same policy, a second SBC must be that consumers may compare health paragraph (a)(1) of this section with provided under this paragraph coverage and understand the terms of respect to an individual satisfies that (a)(1)(iv)(A) only if the information (or exceptions to) their coverage; requirement if another party provides required to be in the SBC has changed. (B) A description of the coverage, (2) If the issuer modifies the terms of the SBC, but only to the extent that the including cost sharing, for each category coverage after receiving an application SBC is timely and complete in of benefits identified by the Secretary in for any health insurance policy accordance with the other rules of this guidance; (including modifications as a result of section. Therefore, for example, in the (C) The exceptions, reductions, and medical underwriting) so that the case of a group health plan funded limitations of the coverage; information required to be in the SBC through an insurance policy, the plan (D) The cost-sharing provisions of the has changed, the issuer must provide an satisfies the requirement to provide an coverage, including deductible, updated SBC that reflects these changes coinsurance, and copayment SBC with respect to an individual if the to the terms of coverage to the applicant, obligations; issuer provides a timely and complete for each policy for which an application SBC to the individual. was received, as soon as practicable, but (E) The renewability and continuation (B) If a participant and any in no event later than the date on which of coverage provisions; beneficiaries are known to reside at the the offer of coverage is made. (F) Coverage examples, in accordance same address, and a single SBC is (B) Individuals covered under with the rules of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of provided to that address, the individual health insurance coverage— this section; requirement to provide the SBC is (1) A health insurance issuer offering (G) With respect to coverage satisfied with respect to all individuals individual health insurance coverage beginning on or after January 1, 2014, a residing at that address. If a must generally provide an SBC to an statement about whether the plan or beneficiary’s last known address is individual who accepts an offer of coverage provides minimum essential different than the participant’s last coverage no later than the first day of coverage as defined under section known address, a separate SBC is coverage. However, if the SBC is 5000A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code required to be provided to the provided upon request for information and whether the plan’s or coverage’s beneficiary at the beneficiary’s last about health insurance coverage or at share of the total allowed costs of known address. the time that an offer of coverage is benefits provided under the plan or (C) With respect to a group health made under paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(A) of coverage meets applicable requirements; plan that offers multiple benefit this section, the SBC must be provided (H) A statement that the SBC is only packages, the plan or issuer is required under this paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(B) only if a summary and that the plan document, to provide a new SBC automatically the information required to be in the policy, or certificate of insurance should upon renewal only with respect to the SBC has changed. be consulted to determine the governing benefit package in which a participant (2) The issuer must provide the SBC contractual provisions of the coverage; or beneficiary is enrolled; SBCs are not to policyholders annually at renewal, no (I) Contact information for questions required to be provided automatically later than 30 days prior to the first day and obtaining a copy of the plan with respect to benefit packages in of coverage under the new policy year. document or the insurance policy, which the participant or beneficiary are The SBC must reflect any modified certificate, or contract of insurance not enrolled. However, if a participant policy terms that would be effective on (such as a telephone number for or beneficiary requests an SBC with the first day of the new policy year. customer service and an Internet respect to another benefit package (or (C) Upon request. A health insurance address for obtaining a copy of the plan more than one other benefit package) for issuer offering individual health document or the insurance policy, which the participant or beneficiary is insurance coverage must provide an certificate, or contract of insurance); eligible, the SBC (or SBCs, in the case SBC to any policyholder or covered (J) For plans and issuers that maintain of a request for SBCs relating to more dependent, upon request, as soon as one or more networks of providers, an than one benefit package) must be practicable, but in no event later than Internet address (or similar contact provided upon request in accordance seven days following the request. information) for obtaining a list of with the rules of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of (v) Special rule to prevent network providers; this section, which requires the SBC to unnecessary duplication with respect to (K) For plans and issuers that use a be provided as soon as practicable, but individual health insurance coverage. If formulary in providing prescription in no event later than seven days the policy covers more than one drug coverage, an Internet address (or following the request. individual (or if an application for similar contact information) for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52474 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

obtaining information on prescription Internet posting) if the following three available on the Internet and includes drug coverage; conditions are satisfied— the applicable Internet address; (L) An Internet address for obtaining (A) The format is readily accessible by (iv) Promptly provide in accordance the uniform glossary, as described in the plan (or its sponsor); with the rules of paragraph (iii), without paragraph (c) of this section; and (B) The SBC is provided in paper form charge, penalty, or the imposition of any (M) Premiums (or in the case of a self- free of charge upon request, and other condition or consequence, a paper insured group health plan, cost of (C) If the electronic form is an Internet copy of the SBC upon request. An issuer coverage). posting, the issuer timely advises the must provide an individual with the (ii) Coverage examples. The SBC must plan (or its sponsor) in paper form or e- ability to request a paper copy of the include coverage examples that mail that the documents are available on SBC both by using the issuer’s Web site illustrate benefits provided under the the Internet and provides the Internet (such as by clicking on a clearly plan or coverage for common benefits address. identified box to make the request) and scenarios (including pregnancy and (ii) An SBC provided by a plan or by calling a readily available telephone serious or chronic medical conditions) issuer to a participant or beneficiary line, the number for which is that are identified by the Secretary in may be provided in paper form. prominently displayed on the issuer’s accordance with the following: Alternatively, for non-Federal Web site, policy documents, and other (A) Number of examples. The governmental plans, the SBC may be marketing materials related to the policy Secretary may identify up to six provided electronically if the plan and clearly identified as to purpose; and coverage examples that may be required conforms to either the substance of the (v) Ensure an SBC provided in in an SBC. (B) Benefits scenarios. For purposes of ERISA provisions at 29 CFR 2520.104b– electronic form is provided in this section, a benefits scenario is a 1, or the provisions governing electronic accordance with the appearance, hypothetical situation, consisting of a disclosure for individual health content, and language requirements of sample treatment plan for a specified insurance issuers set forth in paragraph this section. medical condition during a specific (a)(4)(iii)(B) of this section. (C) Deemed compliance. A health period of time, based on recognized (iii) With respect to an SBC provided insurance issuer offering individual clinical practice guidelines available by an issuer offering individual health health insurance coverage that complies through the National Guideline insurance coverage, the SBC may be with the requirements set forth at 45 Clearinghouse, Agency for Healthcare provided in either electronic or paper CFR § 159.120 (relating to the Federal Research and Quality. The Secretary form. health reform Web portal) is deemed to will specify, in guidance, the types of (A) Paper disclosure. Unless specified comply with the requirement to provide services, dates of service, applicable otherwise by an individual, an issuer the SBC to an individual requesting billing codes, and allowed charges for must provide an SBC (and any information prior to applying for each claim in the benefits scenario. subsequent SBC) in paper form if: coverage. However, an issuer must (C) Demonstration of benefit provided. (1) Upon the individual’s request for provide any SBC provided at the time of To demonstrate benefits provided under information or request for an application or subsequently in a form the plan or coverage, a plan or issuer application for coverage, the individual and manner compliant with the simulates how claims would be makes the request in person, by phone, requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(iii)(A) processed under the scenarios provided or by mail; or and (a)(4)(iii)(B) of this section. by the Secretary to generate an estimate (2) When submitting an application (5) Language. A group health plan or of cost sharing a consumer could expect for coverage, the individual completes health insurance issuer must provide to pay under the benefit package. The the application by phone or mail. the SBC in a culturally and demonstration of benefits will take into (B) Electronic disclosure—(1) An linguistically appropriate manner. For account any cost sharing, excluded issuer may provide an SBC (and any purposes of this paragraph (a)(5), a plan benefits, and other limitations on SBC provided thereafter) in electronic or issuer is considered to provide the coverage, as described by the Secretary form (such as through an Internet SBC in a culturally and linguistically in guidance. posting or via electronic mail) if: appropriate manner if the thresholds (3) Appearance. A group health plan (i) Upon an individual’s request for and standards of § 147.136(e) of this and a health insurance issuer must information or request for an chapter are met as applied to the SBC. provide an SBC as a stand-alone application for coverage, the individual (b) Notice of modifications. If a group document in the form authorized by the makes a request electronically; or health plan, or health insurance issuer Secretary and completed in accordance (ii) When submitting an application, offering group or individual health with the instructions for completing the an individual completes an application insurance coverage, makes any material SBC that are authorized by the Secretary for coverage electronically. modification (as defined under section in guidance. The SBC must be presented (2) If an issuer provides an SBC in 102 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1022) in any of in a uniform format, use terminology electronic form, the issuer must: the terms of the plan or coverage that understandable by the average plan (i) Request that an individual would affect the content of the SBC, that enrollee (or, in the case of individual acknowledge receipt of the SBC; is not reflected in the most recently market coverage, the average individual (ii) Make the SBC available in an provided SBC, and that occurs other covered a health insurance policy), not electronic format that is readily usable than in connection with a renewal or exceed four double-sided pages in by the general public; reissuance of coverage, the plan or length, and not include print smaller (iii) If the SBC is posted on the issuer must provide notice of the than 12-point font. Internet, display the SBC in a location modification to enrollees (or, in the case (4) Form—(i) An SBC provided by an that is prominent and readily accessible of individual market coverage, an issuer offering group health insurance to the individual and provide timely individual covered a health insurance coverage to a plan (or its sponsor), may notice, in electronic or non-electronic policy), not later than 60 days prior to be provided in paper form. form, to each individual who requests the date on which such modification Alternatively, the SBC may be provided information or applies for coverage that will become effective. The notice of electronically (such as e-mail or an apprises the individual the SBC is modification must be provided in a form

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52475

that is consistent with the rules of electronic form (as requested), within Department of Labor; Centers for paragraph (a)(4) of this section. seven days of the request. (Under the Medicare & Medicaid Services, (c) Uniform glossary—(1) In general. rules of paragraph (a) of this section, the Department of Health and Human A group health plan, and a health form authorized in guidance for the SBC Services. insurance issuer offering group health will disclose to participants, ACTION: Solicitation of comments. insurance coverage, must make beneficiaries, and individuals covered available to participants and under an individual policy their rights SUMMARY: The Departments of the beneficiaries, and a health insurance to request a copy of the uniform Health and Human Services, Labor, and issuer offering individual health glossary.) the Treasury (the Departments) are insurance coverage must make available (d) Preemption. For purposes of this simultaneously publishing in the to applicants, policyholders, and section, the provisions of section 2724 Federal Register this document and covered dependents, the uniform of the PHS Act continue to apply with proposed regulations (2011 proposed glossary described in paragraph (c)(2) of respect to preemption of State law. In regulations) under the Patient Protection this section in accordance with the addition, with respect to the standards and Affordable Care Act to implement appearance and format requirements of for providing an SBC required under the disclosure for group health plans paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this paragraph (a) of this section, State laws and health insurance issuers of the section. that require a health insurance issuer to summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) (2) Health-coverage-related terms and provide an SBC that supplies less and the uniform glossary. This medical terms. The uniform glossary information than required under document proposes a template for an must provide uniform definitions, paragraph (a) of this section are SBC; instructions, sample language, and specified by the Secretary in guidance, preempted. a guide for coverage examples for the following health-coverage-related (e) Failure to provide. A health calculations to be used in completing terms and medical terms: insurance issuer or a non-Federal the template; and a uniform glossary (i) Allowed amount, appeal, balance governmental health plan that willfully that would satisfy the disclosure billing, co-insurance, complications of fails to provide information required requirements under section 2715 of the pregnancy, co-payment, deductible, under this section is subject to a fine of Public Health Service (PHS) Act. durable medical equipment, emergency not more than $1,000 for each such Comments are invited on these medical condition, emergency medical failure. A failure with respect to each materials. transportation, emergency room care, covered individual constitutes a emergency services, excluded services, DATES: Comment Dates: Comments are separate offense for purposes of this due on or before October 21, 2011. grievance, habilitation services, health paragraph (e). HHS will enforce these ADDRESSES: Written comments may be insurance, home health care, hospice provisions in a manner consistent with submitted to any of the addresses services, hospitalization, hospital 45 CFR 150.101 through 150.465. outpatient care, in-network co- (f) Applicability date. This section is specified below. Any comment that is insurance, in-network co-payment, applicable beginning March 23, 2012. submitted to any Department will be medically necessary, network, non- See § 147.140(d) of this chapter, shared with the other Departments. preferred provider, out-of-network co- providing that this section applies to Please do not submit duplicates. insurance, out-of-network co-payment, grandfathered health plans. All comments will be made available out-of-pocket limit, physician services, to the public. Warning: Do not include plan, preauthorization, preferred [FR Doc. 2011–21193 Filed 8–17–11; 11:15 am] any personally identifiable information provider, premium, prescription drug BILLING CODE 4120–01–P (such as name, address, or other contact coverage, prescription drugs, primary information) or confidential business information that you do not want care physician, primary care provider, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY provider, reconstructive surgery, publicly disclosed. All comments are rehabilitation services, skilled nursing Internal Revenue Service posted on the Internet exactly as care, specialist, usual customary and received, and can be retrieved by most reasonable (UCR), and urgent care; and 26 CFR Part 54 Internet search engines. No deletions, (ii) Such other terms as the Secretary modifications, or redactions will be determines are important to define so DEPARTMENT OF LABOR made to the comments received, as they that individuals and employers may are public records. Comments may be compare and understand the terms of Employee Benefits Security submitted anonymously. coverage and medical benefits Administration Department of Labor. Comments to (including any exceptions to those the Department of Labor, identified by benefits), as specified in guidance. 29 CFR Part 2590 RIN 1210–AB52, by one of the following (3) Appearance. A group health plan, methods: • and a health insurance issuer, must DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// provide the uniform glossary with the HUMAN SERVICES www.regulations.gov. Follow the appearance authorized in guidance, instructions for submitting comments. ensuring that the uniform glossary is [CMS–9982–NC] • E-mail: E–OHPSCA2715.EBSA presented in a uniform format and @dol.gov. utilizes terminology understandable by 45 CFR Part 147 • Mail or Hand Delivery: Office of the average plan enrollee (or, in the case Summary of Benefits and Coverage Health Plan Standards and Compliance of individual market coverage, an and Uniform Glossary—Templates, Assistance, Employee Benefits Security average individual covered under a Instructions, and Related Materials Administration, Room N–5653, U.S. health insurance policy). Under the Public Health Service Act Department of Labor, 200 Constitution (4) Form and manner. A plan or issuer Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, must make the uniform glossary AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Attention: RIN 1210–AB52. described in this paragraph (c) available Department of the Treasury; Employee Comments received by the upon request, in either paper or Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor will be posted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

without change to http:// If you intend to deliver your Administration, Department of Labor, at www.regulations.gov and http:// comments to the Baltimore address, (202) 693–8335; Karen Levin, Internal www.dol.gov/ebsa, and available for please call (410) 786–9994 in advance to Revenue Service, Department of the public inspection at the Public schedule your arrival with one of our Treasury, at (202) 622–6080; Jennifer Disclosure Room, N–1513, Employee staff members. Libster or Padma Shah, Centers for Benefits Security Administration, 200 Comments mailed to the addresses Medicare & Medicaid Services, Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, indicated as appropriate for hand or Department of Health and Human DC 20210. courier delivery may be delayed and Services, at (301) 492–4252. Department of Health and Human received after the comment period. Customer Service Information: Services. In commenting, please refer to Submission of comments on Individuals interested in obtaining file code CMS–9982–NC. Because of paperwork requirements. You may information from the Department of staff and resource limitations, we cannot submit comments on this document’s Labor concerning employment-based accept comments by facsimile (FAX) paperwork requirements by following health coverage laws may call the EBSA transmission. the instructions at the end of the Toll-Free Hotline at 1–866–444–EBSA You may submit comments in one of ‘‘Collection of Information (3272) or visit the Department of Labor’s four ways (please choose only one of the Requirements’’ section in this Web site (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa). In ways listed): document. addition, information from HHS on 1. Electronically. You may submit Inspection of Public Comments: All private health insurance for consumers electronic comments on this regulation comments received before the close of can be found on the Centers for to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the comment period are available for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) the instructions under the ‘‘More Search viewing by the public, including any Web site (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ personally identifiable or confidential HealthInsReformforConsume/ Options’’ tab. _ 2. By regular mail. You may mail business information that is included in 01 Overview.asp) and information on written comments to the following a comment. We post all comments health reform can be found at http:// address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & received before the close of the www.healthcare.gov. Medicaid Services, Department of comment period on the following Web SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Health and Human Services, Attention: site as soon as possible after they have I. Introduction CMS–9982–NC, P.O. Box 8016, been received: http:// Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. www.regulations.gov. Follow the search The Departments of Health and Please allow sufficient time for mailed instructions on that Web site to view Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the comments to be received before the public comments. Treasury (the Departments) are taking a close of the comment period. Comments received timely will also phased approach to issuing regulations 3. By express or overnight mail. You be available for public inspection as and guidance implementing the revised may send written comments to the they are received, generally beginning Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) following address ONLY: Centers for approximately three weeks after sections 2701 through 2719A and Medicare & Medicaid Services, publication of a document, at the related provisions of the Patient Department of Health and Human headquarters of the Centers for Medicare Protection and Affordable Care Act Services, Attention: CMS–9982–NC, & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security (Affordable Care Act).1 Section 2715 of Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, the PHS Act directs the Departments to Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. Monday through Friday of each week develop standards for use by a group 4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. EST. To health plan and a health insurance you may deliver (by hand or courier) schedule an appointment to view public issuer in compiling and providing a your written comments before the close comments, phone 1–800–743–3951. summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) of the comment period to either of the Internal Revenue Service. Comments that ‘‘accurately describes the benefits following addresses: to the IRS, identified by REG–140038– and coverage under the applicable plan a. For delivery in Washington, DC— 10, by one of the following methods: or coverage.’’ Section 2715 of the PHS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Act also directs the Departments to Services, Department of Health and www.regulations.gov. Follow the provide for the development of a Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert instructions for submitting comments. uniform glossary. The statute directs the H. Humphrey Building, 200 • Mail: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–140038– Departments, in developing such Independence Avenue, SW., 10), room 5205, Internal Revenue standards, to ‘‘consult with the National Washington, DC 20201. Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Association of Insurance (Because access to the interior of the Station, Washington, DC 20044. Commissioners’’ (referred to in this Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not • Hand or courier delivery: Monday document as the ‘‘NAIC’’), ‘‘a working readily available to persons without through Friday between the hours of 8 group composed of representatives of Federal government identification, a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR health insurance-related consumer commenters are encouraged to leave (REG–140038–10), Courier’s Desk, advocacy organizations, health their comments in the CMS drop slots Internal Revenue Service, 1111 insurance issuers, health care located in the main lobby of the Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington professionals, patient advocates building. A stamp-in clock is available DC 20224. including those representing for persons wishing to retain a proof of All submissions to the IRS will be 1 filing by stamping in and retaining an open to public inspection and copying The Affordable Care Act also adds section in room 1621, 1111 Constitution 715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income extra copy of the comments being filed.) Security Act (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— Avenue, NW., Washington, DC from 9 Internal Revenue Code (the Code) to incorporate the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid a.m. to 4 p.m. provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: into ERISA and the Code, and make them Services, Department of Health and applicable to group health plans, and health Human Services, 7500 Security Amy Turner or Heather Raeburn, insurance issuers providing health insurance Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. Employee Benefits Security coverage in connection with group health plans.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52477

individuals with limited English The Departments have received NAIC working group’s recommended proficiency, and other qualified transmittals from the NAIC that include materials as transmitted (with the individuals.’’ a recommended template for the SBC exception of the sample coverage As part of this required consultation, (referred to in this document as the example, explained above), and invites the NAIC convened the Consumer ‘‘SBC template’’) 6 with instructions, public comment. The Departments Information (B) Subgroup (NAIC samples, and a guide for coverage recognize that changes to the SBC working group), comprised of a diverse examples calculations to be used in template may be appropriate to group of stakeholders.2 This working completing the SBC template. The NAIC accommodate various types of plan and group met frequently each month for transmittals also included a coverage designs, to provide additional over one year while developing its recommended uniform glossary of information to individuals, or to recommendations. The NAIC working coverage and medical terms (referred to improve the efficacy of the disclosures group created two subgroups—one in this document as the ‘‘uniform recommended by the NAIC. In addition, focused on developing a uniform glossary’’). The SBC template and the SBC template and related glossary of health insurance and uniform glossary include modifications documents were drafted by the NAIC medical terms and the other focused on made by the NAIC working group in primarily for use by health insurance developing standards for the SBC. All response to the results of extensive issuers.7 The NAIC states in its drafts were discussed and agreed to by consumer testing. transmittal letter that additional the entire NAIC working group and then The 2011 proposed regulations and modifications may be needed for some submitted to the full NAIC membership this document follow the group health plans. Consequently, for a vote to submit the drafts as recommendations made by the NAIC comments are requested on these issues recommendations to the Departments. and incorporate the documents drafted specifically and on the SBC template, Throughout the process, NAIC working by the NAIC, including the SBC sample completed SBC, instructions for group draft documents and meeting template (with instructions, sample both group health plan coverage and notes were displayed on the NAIC’s language, and a guide for coverage individual health insurance coverage, Web site for public review, and several examples calculations to be used in sample language for the ‘‘Why this interested parties filed formal completing the SBC template) and the Matters’’ section of the SBC, guide for comments. In addition to participation uniform glossary. The Appendices do coverage examples calculations, and on from the NAIC working group members, not include a sample coverage example the uniform glossary generally. After the conference calls and in-person meetings calculation for breast cancer in the public comment period, the were open to other interested parties individual market that was transmitted Departments will finalize these and individuals and provided an by the NAIC. Upon review, it appeared documents. Consistent with PHS Act opportunity for non-member feedback. that some of the data in the example section 2715(c), the Departments will The NAIC indicates that stakeholders might be subject to copyright protection. periodically review and update these from a diverse pool of backgrounds Moreover, the sample coverage example documents as appropriate, taking into participated in working group calculation provided by the NAIC was account public comments. limited to breast cancer in the conference calls.3 II. Proposal As a result of this process, the NAIC individual market and did not address This document proposes an SBC working group recommended use of a the other two coverage examples— template (with instructions, samples, uniform SBC template, as well as a maternity coverage and diabetes. Finally, particular coding information and a guide for coverage examples uniform glossary, for the individual and and pricing information included in the calculations to be used in completing group insurance markets. In developing sample would change annually, which the SBC template), and the uniform these recommendations, the draft SBC would result in the data included in the glossary, to comply with the disclosure template, including the coverage sample becoming outdated relatively requirements of PHS Act section 2715, examples, and the draft uniform quickly. Accordingly, HHS is publishing as authorized by the Departments glossary underwent consumer testing,4 on its Web site (at http://cciio.cms.gov) pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) of the 2011 sponsored by both consumer and the coding and pricing information proposed regulations. The SBC insurance industry groups. These tests necessary to perform coverage example template, sample completed SBC, were intended to assist in determining calculations for all three coverage instructions for both group health plan necessary adjustments to ensure the coverage and individual health 5 examples. HHS will update this final product was consumer friendly. information annually. insurance coverage, sample language for Instead of proposing possible changes the ‘‘Why This Matters’’ section of the 2 A list of the NAIC working group members can be found at: http://www.naic.org/documents/ to the NAIC’s proposed SBC template SBC, guide for coverage examples committees_b_consumer_information_contacts.pdf. and related materials at this time, this calculations, and uniform glossary are 3 Records and other information relating to all of document proposes to incorporate the identical to the documents transmitted the meetings held by the NAIC working group can by the NAIC. These items are contained _ be found at: http://www.naic.org/committees information_110603_ahip_bcbsa_consumer_ _ _ in the Appendices to this document. b consumer information.htm. testing.pdf; http://www.naic.org/documents/ In addition to the materials in the 4 The NAIC consulted readability experts and committees_b_consumer_information_ conducted consumer testing. The SBC format was 101014_consumers_union.pdf (a more detailed Appendices that are proposed in this designed to enhance to consumer understanding summary of which is accessible at: http:// document, HHS is providing (at http:// and usability. For example, use of vocabulary, such prescriptionforchange.org/pdf/CU_Consumer_ cciio.cms.gov) the specific information as ‘‘don’t’’ verses ‘‘do not’’ reflects intentional Testing_Report_Dec_2010.pdf); and http:// necessary to simulate benefits covered design based on feedback from consumer testing. www.naic.org/documents/committees_b_consumer_ These format choices reflect in part, the NAIC’s information_110603_consumers_union_testing.pdf. under the plan or policy for the efforts to address the statutory requirement that the 6 In their materials, the NAIC uses the phrase form be ‘‘culturally and linguistically appropriate.’’ ‘‘Summary of Coverage’’ to describe the SBC 7 National Association of Insurance 5 Summaries of this consumer testing are template. However, the Departments use the term Commissioners, Consumer Information Working available at: http://www.naic.org/documents/ ‘‘Summary of Benefits and Coverage’’ in the Group, December 17, 2010 Letter to the Secretaries. committees_b_consumer_information_101012_ proposed regulations and this document. Both of Available at http://www.naic.org/documents/ ahip_focus_group_summary.pdf; http://www.naic. these terms are meant to refer to the same document committees_b_consumer_information_ppaca_letter_ org/documents/committees_b_consumer_ (located in Appendix A–1 of this document). to_sebelius.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

coverage examples portion of the SBC the NAIC recommendations. For the in the Appendices to this document). In (including specific medical items and same reason, and as discussed more addition, the Departments note that services, dates of service, billing codes, fully in the preamble to the 2011 while the NAIC-recommended SBC and allowed charges for each claim in proposed regulations, the minimum template is only three double-sided the three specified benefits scenarios). essential coverage statement is not pages, the Departments are proposing HHS will update this information required to be in the SBC until the plan that a completed SBC may be four annually on its Web site. The or coverage is required to provide an double-sided pages in length. The SBC Departments propose that plans and SBC with respect to coverage beginning template reserves space to ensure that a issuers are not required to update their on or after January 1, 2014. As provided plan or issuer with different benefit coverage examples for SBCs provided in the preamble to the 2011 proposed designs (such as multiple, tiered before the date that is 90 days after the regulations, comments are requested on provider networks) could provide all the date that HHS provides this updated how employers might provide the necessary information, and that information. That is, 90 days after HHS information included in the minimum additional coverage examples could be updates the information, SBCs that are essential coverage statement and other added in the future, within four double- otherwise required to be provided under plan-level reporting in a manner that sided pages. (See the preamble to the paragraph (a) of the proposed rules minimizes duplication and burden. 2011 proposed regulations for a request should take into account the new In addition, the SBC template for comment regarding various information when providing coverage recommended by the NAIC and located approaches to providing the coverage examples. For example, if HHS releases in Appendix A–1 of this document examples.) updated information on September 15 of includes Web sites for individuals to The Departments are interested in any a year, SBCs required to be provided on access the uniform glossary, for general comments regarding the or after December 14 of that year under information about prescription drug proposed SBC template, sample the rules of paragraph (a) of the coverage, and for information about the completed SBC, instructions for both proposed rules would need to include plan or coverage provider network. The group health plan coverage and coverage examples calculated using the Departments note, however, these Web individual health insurance coverage, new information. However, these sites are not working Web sites. Plans sample language for the ‘‘Why This updates alone will not be considered a and issuers would need to modify this Matters’’ section of the SBC, guide for material modification under paragraph aspect of the SBC template to include coverage examples calculations, and (b) of the 2011 proposed regulations. relevant, working Web addresses (for uniform glossary. In making this request Comments are invited on this the uniform glossary, this may be the for comment, the Departments note that information as well, including the Web address of either the Department of the purpose of PHS Act section 2715 is annual update provision. The preamble Labor or HHS Web site, or on the plan’s to provide individuals and plan to the 2011 proposed regulations or issuer’s own Web site). The participants with a brief summary of contains a request for comment Departments invite comment on plan or policy benefits and coverage so regarding various approaches to whether this statement in the SBC that they may more easily compare providing the coverage examples. template regarding the electronically health care coverage and better Commenters addressing the requirement available uniform glossary should be understand the terms of coverage (or to provide updated coverage examples modified to include a statement that the exceptions to the coverage). The SBC is are encouraged to consider how updates uniform glossary is available in paper intended to assist individuals would be made to the coverage form upon request. purchasing coverage in the individual examples under these various III. Solicitation of Comments market in comparing the benefits and approaches and what additional coverage of different individual policies instructions should be added to address The Departments solicit comments offered by insurance issuers. Likewise, updates and a possible phased-in generally on the SBC template and the SBC is intended to assist employees approach to implementation discussed related documents and the uniform who are offered group coverage to in the preamble to the 2011 proposed glossary included in the Appendices, as compare among different employer- regulations. well as on specific issues set forth below provided health care options or to With respect to the element of the (including on what modifications, if compare their employer’s options with SBC regarding a statement about any, are needed for group health plans other coverage for which they may be whether a plan or coverage provides to use the SBC template). eligible, such as a spouse’s or The NAIC stated in the December minimum essential coverage (as defined dependent’s offer of employer-provided 2010 transmittal letter that the working under section 5000A(f) of the Code) and health care coverage, a former group intentionally designed the layout whether the plan’s or coverage’s share of employer’s COBRA continuation and color of the SBC template based on the total allowed costs of benefits coverage,10 or a policy on the individual consumer testing to make the document provided under the plan or coverage market. meets applicable minimum value more readable and to facilitate In order to make it as easy as possible requirements (minimum essential comparison of different plan and for individuals to understand the terms coverage statement),8 because this coverage options. The Departments of their own coverage and compare content is not relevant until other recognize, however, that color printing coverage and benefits efficiently and elements of the Affordable Care Act are may be costly for some plans and accurately, the statute provides for, and implemented, this statement is not in issuers and therefore propose that a plan the NAIC recognized the importance of, or issuer will be compliant if it uses presenting the SBC in a uniform format. 8 PHS Act section 2715(b)(3)(G) provides that this either the color version (available on the We invite comments on how this statement must indicate whether the plan or Web sites of the Departments of Labor statutory requirement should be coverage (1) provides minimum essential coverage and HHS),9 as recommended by the (as defined under section 5000A(f) of the Code) and (2) ensures that the plan’s or coverage’s share of the NAIC, or the grayscale version (included 10 As defined in 26 CFR 54.9801–2, 29 CFR total allowed costs of benefits provided under the 2590.701–2, and 45 CFR 144.103, COBRA means plan or coverage is not less than 60 percent of such 9 See http://www.dol.gov/ebsa or http:// Title X of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget costs. cciio.cms.gov. Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52479

applied, including the nature and extent simplified reporting method, such as a unless it displays a currently valid OMB of the uniformity that should be checkbox, could be used to disclose control number. See 44 U.S.C. 3507. required in the specific language of the preexisting condition exclusions and Also, notwithstanding any other SBC and the manner and sequence in grandfather status. provisions of law, no person shall be which the information in the SBC is 4. The fourth page of the SBC subject to penalty for failing to comply presented. We ask that any comments template includes a list of services that with a collection of information if the proposing that flexibility be permitted plans and issuers must indicate as either collection of information does not in aspects of the presentation of the SBC excluded or covered in the ‘‘Excluded display a currently valid OMB control explicitly address the potential positive Services & Other Covered Services’’ number. See 44 U.S.C. 3512. or negative effects on individuals’ chart. The Departments solicit This document relates to the ability to effectively compare benefits comments on whether services should information collection request (ICR) and coverage among and across be added or removed from this list, as contained in a proposed regulation individual policies and group health well as whether the disclosure stating titled ‘‘Summary of Benefits and plans. that the list is not complete is adequate. Coverage and the Uniform Glossary,’’ The Departments also invite 5. The SBC template includes a which is published elsewhere in today’s comments on the following specific disclosure on the first page indicating to issue of the Federal Register. For a issues: consumers that the SBC is not the actual discussion of the hour and cost burden 1. The SBC template is intended to be policy and does not include all of the associated with the ICR, please see the used by all types of plan or coverage coverage details found in the actual notice of proposed rulemaking. designs. The Departments are interested policy. The Departments solicit in comments related to issues that may comments on whether this disclosure is Sarah Hall Ingram, arise from the use of this template for adequate. Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and different types of plan or coverage The uniform glossary is also included Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service. designs (for example, designs using in Appendix E of this document. The Signed this 15th day of August, 2011. tiered provider networks or group Departments propose that plans and Phyllis C. Borzi, health plans that may use multiple issuers cannot make any modifications Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits issuers or service providers to provide to this glossary. The uniform glossary Security Administration, Department of or administer different categories of was developed to facilitate and enhance Labor. benefits within a benefit package). consumer comprehension and is not Dated: July 28, 2011. intended to provide legal or contractual 2. The Departments are interested in Donald Berwick, comments regarding any modifications definitions that necessarily apply accurately, without modification, to Administrator, Centers for Medicare & needed for use by group health plans Medicaid Services. (e.g., with respect to disclosure every plan or coverage. The NAIC regarding cost of coverage and changes consumer testing found that certain Dated: August 9, 2011. in terminology required for self-insured terms relating to cost-sharing provisions Kathleen Sebelius, plans, such as use of the term ‘‘plan were particularly difficult for consumers Secretary, Department of Health and Human year’’ instead of ‘‘policy period’’). to understand. As a result, the NAIC Services. 3. The Departments are interested in developed diagrams to accompany the V. Appendices comments regarding whether the textual definitions of these terms. The content of the SBC should require Departments solicit comments on the Table of Contents inclusion of additional information, uniform glossary, including its terms A. Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) such as information regarding any and definitions, and whether other Appendix A–1. SBC Template preexisting condition exclusion under terms should be added to the glossary, Appendix A–2. Sample Completed SBC the plan or policy,11 status as a as well as whether any of the terms (Individual Health Insurance Coverage) grandfathered health plan,12 or other would be considered inaccurate or B. Instructions for Completing the SBC misleading based on a particular plan or Appendix B–1. Instructions—Group Health information that might be important for Plan Coverage individuals to know about their coverage design. Appendix B–2. Instructions—Individual coverage and how the SBC template Comments are also invited on the Health Insurance Coverage could be modified to ensure effective standards set forth in the 2011 proposed C. Sample Language—Why This Matters disclosure of these additional elements, regulations. To comment on the 2011 section of SBC (Page 1) while respecting the statutory proposed regulations, see the comment Appendix C–1. Why This Matters language formatting requirements. For example, section of the 2011 proposed for ‘‘Yes’’ Answers comments are requested on whether a regulations, published elsewhere in this Appendix C–2. Why This Matters language issue of the Federal Register. for ‘‘No’’ Answers D. Coverage Examples Calculations 11 Note: The general notice of preexisting IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Appendix D. Guide for Coverage Examples condition exclusion and the individual notice of preexisting condition exclusion at 26 CFR 54.9801– Calculations According to the Paperwork E. Uniform Glossary 3(c) and (e), 29 CFR 2590.701–3(c) and (e), and 45 Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) CFR 146.111(c) and (e), were published as part of Appendix E. Uniform Glossary of Coverage the Departments’ HIPAA portability regulations on (PRA), no persons are required to and Medical Terms December 30, 2004, 69 FR 78720. respond to a collection of information 12 Note: Under paragraph (a)(2) of the unless such collection displays a valid Overview of Appendices Departments’ interim final regulations regarding OMB control number. The Department As stated earlier in this document, the status as a grandfathered health plan, to maintain grandfather status, group health plans and health notes that a Federal agency cannot NAIC transmitted the work of the NAIC insurance coverage must include a statement in any conduct or sponsor a collection of Working Group to the Departments. The plan materials describing the benefits provided that information unless it is approved by Appendices to this document include the plan or coverage believes it is a grandfathered OMB under the PRA, and displays a the SBC documents drafted by the NAIC health plan. Model language is provided. See 26 CFR 54.9815–1251T(a)(2), 29 CFR 2590.715– currently valid OMB control number, in their entirety, with the exception of 1251(a)(2), and 45 CFR 147.140(a)(2), published in and the public is not required to the sample coverage example the Federal Register on June 17, 2010, 75 FR 34538. respond to a collection of information calculation for breast cancer in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52480 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

individual market, as explained earlier completed SBC and the instructions to format by HHS at http://cciio.cms.gov, in this document. facilitate compliance with the comprises all the information necessary Appendix A–1 contains an SBC requirements of the 2011 proposed to perform coverage example template, as developed by the NAIC regulations and this document. calculations for all three coverage Working Group. The NAIC Working The SBC instructions include examples. HHS will update the Group incorporated all of their language that must be used when information on its Web site annually. recommendations contained in the completing the ‘‘Why This Matters’’ With respect to these annual updates, multiple transmittals to the Departments column on the first page of the SBC the Departments propose that 90 days over the last several months in their template. Depending on the design of after HHS updates the information, final recommended SBC template. the policy or plan, there are two SBCs that are otherwise required to be Appendix A–2 contains a sample language options provided in provided under paragraph (a) of the completed SBC, using information for a Appendices C–1 (for when the answer 2011 proposed rules would take into sample individual health insurance in the applicable row is ‘‘yes’’) and C– account the new information when policy. While the sample completed 2 (for when the answer in the applicable providing coverage examples. SBC may not align perfectly with the row is ‘‘no’’). Appendices C–1 and C–2 Finally, Appendix E contains the instructions in every way, the document provide an example of how this column Uniform Glossary of Health Insurance is useful in providing a general will look when populated with the and Medical Terms. illustration of a completed SBC for a required language, as applicable sample insurance policy. depending upon the terms of the plan or The Departments invite comments on Appendices B–1 and B–2 contain coverage. all of the documents in the Appendices instructions for group health coverage Appendix D contains a guide for use to this document and their use in and individual health insurance by a plan or issuer in compiling relation to the requirements of the 2011 coverage, respectively, to use in information related to the coverage proposed regulations and this completing the SBC template. The examples. This document, together with document. Departments are publishing the sample information provided in Microsoft Excel BILING CODE 4120–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52481

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.000 52482 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.001 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52483

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.002 52484 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.003 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52485

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.004 52486 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.005 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52487

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.006 52488 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.007 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52489

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.008 52490 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.009 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52491

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.010 52492 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.011 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52493

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.012 52494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.013 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52495

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.014 52496 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.015 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52497

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.016 52498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.017 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52499

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.018 52500 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.019 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52501

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.020 52502 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.021 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52503

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.022 52504 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.023 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52505

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.024 52506 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.025 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52507

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.026 52508 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.027 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52509

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.028 52510 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.029 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52511

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.030 52512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.031 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52513

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.032 52514 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.033 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52515

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.034 52516 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.035 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52517

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.036 52518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.037 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52519

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.038 52520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.039 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52521

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.040 52522 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.041 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52523

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.042 52524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.043 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52525

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.044 52526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.045 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52527

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.046 52528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.047 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52529

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.048 52530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.049 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52531

[FR Doc. 2011–21192 Filed 8–17–11; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4120–01–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU11.050 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 162 Monday, August 22, 2011

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING AUGUST

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. Presidential Documents 3 CFR 433...... 49279 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 435...... 49279 Proclamations: The United States Government Manual 741–6000 Proposed Rules: 8696...... 46183 26...... 46651 Other Services 8697...... 49277 40...... 47085 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 8698...... 49647 429...... 48745, 49238 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 Executive Orders: 430 ...... 47518, 49238, 50145 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 13582...... 52209 431 ...... 47518, 48745, 50148, TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 Administrative Orders: 51281 Notices: 12 CFR ELECTRONIC RESEARCH Notice of July 28, 2011 ...... 45653 World Wide Web 100...... 48950 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications Notice of August 12, 108...... 48950 is located at: www.fdsys.gov. 2011 ...... 50661 109...... 48950 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 112...... 48950 5 CFR 116...... 48950 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: Proposed Rules: 128...... 48950 www.ofr.gov. 213...... 47495 133...... 48950 E-mail 250...... 47516 136...... 48950 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 302...... 47495 141...... 48950 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 315...... 47495 143...... 48950 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 330...... 47495 144...... 48950 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 334...... 47495 145...... 48950 PDF links to the full text of each document. 362...... 47495 146...... 48950 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 530...... 45710 150...... 48950 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 531...... 45710, 47495 151...... 48950 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 536...... 45710, 47495 152...... 48950 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 550...... 47495 155...... 48950 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 575...... 47495 157...... 48950 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 733...... 52287 159...... 48950 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 890...... 47495 160...... 48950 the instructions. 161...... 48950 FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 6 CFR 162...... 48950 respond to specific inquiries. Proposed Rules: 163...... 48950 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 31...... 46908 164...... 48950 Federal Register system to: fedreg.infonara.gov 165...... 48950 7 CFR The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 167...... 48950 regulations. 205...... 46595 168...... 48950 Reminders. Effective January 1, 2009, the Reminders, including 946...... 48713 169...... 48950 Rules Going Into Effect and Comments Due Next Week, no longer 1217...... 46185 170...... 48950 appear in the Reader Aids section of the Federal Register. This 1730...... 47055 171...... 48950 information can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov. Proposed Rules: 172...... 48950 CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no 272...... 51907 174...... 48950 longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 273...... 51274, 51907 190...... 48950 found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. 276...... 51274 191...... 48950 319...... 46209 192...... 48950 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, AUGUST 402...... 50929 193...... 48950 906...... 49381 194...... 48950 45653–46184...... 1 52209–52532...... 22 920...... 48742 195...... 48950 46185–46594...... 2 923...... 46651 196...... 48950 46595–47054...... 3 984...... 50703 197...... 48950 47055–47422...... 4 Ch. III ...... 47652 47423–47984...... 5 9 CFR 1204...... 51869 47985–48712...... 8 201...... 50881 Proposed Rules: 48713–49278...... 9 Proposed Rules: 240...... 46652 49279–49648...... 10 71...... 50082 615...... 51289 49649–50110...... 11 77...... 50082 50111–50402...... 12 78...... 50082 14 CFR 50403–50660...... 15 90...... 50082 33...... 47423 50661–50880...... 16 39 ...... 45655, 45657, 46597, 50881–51244...... 17 10 CFR 47056, 47424, 47427, 47430, 51245–51868...... 18 429...... 46202 50111, 50113, 50115, 50403, 51869–52208...... 19 430...... 46202 50405, 50881, 52213, 52217,

VerDate Mar 15 2010 20:32 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\22AUCU.LOC 22AUCU sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ii Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Reader Aids

52220, 52222, 52225 163...... 51914 117 ...... 45690, 47440, 48717, 52 ...... 45741, 47090, 47092, 65...... 47058 49300, 49662, 49663, 49664, 47094, 48754, 49391, 49708, 71 ...... 47060, 47061, 47435, 20 CFR 50123, 50124, 51885 49711, 51314, 51922, 51925, 49285, 52229, 52230 655...... 45667 165 ...... 45693, 46626, 47441, 51927 91...... 52231 47993, 47996, 48718, 49301, 72...... 50164 95...... 46202 21 CFR 49664, 49666, 50124, 50667, 75...... 50164 97 ...... 47985, 47988, 52237, 520...... 48714, 49649 50669, 50680, 51255, 51887, 85...... 48758 52239 522...... 48714 52266, 52268, 52269 86...... 48758 119...... 52231 524...... 48714 Proposed Rules: 98...... 47392 121...... 52241 866...... 48715 117...... 50161, 50950 174...... 49396 125...... 52231 870...... 50663 165 ...... 45738, 48070, 48751, 180...... 49396 133...... 52231 884...... 50663 50710 260...... 48073 137...... 52231 886...... 51876 167...... 47529 261...... 48073 141...... 52231 300 ...... 49397, 50164, 50441, Proposed Rules: 34 CFR 142...... 52231 73...... 49707 51316 145...... 52231 101...... 46671, 49707 668...... 52271 370...... 48093 147...... 52231 600...... 48758 573...... 48751 37 CFR Proposed Rules: 870...... 47085, 48058 721...... 46678 39 ...... 45713, 47520, 47522, 882...... 48062 370...... 45695 48045, 48047, 48049, 48749, 382...... 45695 41 CFR 50152, 50706, 52288 22 CFR 38 CFR Proposed Rules: 71 ...... 49383, 49385, 49386, 126...... 47990 60...... 49398 49387, 49388, 49390, 50156, 1...... 51890 Proposed Rules: Ch. 301 ...... 46216 52290, 52291, 52292 2...... 51890 228...... 51916 17...... 52272 42 CFR 15 CFR 23 CFR 21...... 45697, 49669 412...... 47836, 51476 744...... 50407 51...... 52274 Proposed Rules: 413...... 48486, 51476 Proposed Rules: 655...... 46213 39 CFR 418...... 47302 Ch. VII...... 47527 476...... 51476 801...... 50158 25 CFR 20...... 50414 111...... 48722, 51257 Proposed Rules: 16 CFR Proposed Rules: 5...... 50442 Proposed Rules: 430...... 46684 3...... 52249 Ch. III...... 47089, 50436 111...... 50438 431...... 51148 4...... 52249 26 CFR 3020...... 51311 Ch. II...... 46598, 49286 433...... 46684, 51148 1450...... 47436 1 ...... 45673, 49300, 49570, 40 CFR 435...... 51148 447...... 46684 Proposed Rules: 50887, 51878, 51879 1...... 49669 457...... 46684, 51148 305...... 45715 17...... 51879 2...... 49669 20...... 49570 424...... 51308 9...... 47996 43 CFR 1130...... 48053 25...... 49570 21...... 49669 51...... 51245 35...... 49669 Proposed Rules: 17 CFR 54...... 46621 49...... 49669 2...... 52295 35...... 49291 301...... 52259 51...... 48208 44 CFR 40...... 45666 602...... 51245 52 ...... 45705, 47062, 47068, 200...... 46603 Proposed Rules: 47074, 47076, 47443, 48002, 64...... 49329 210...... 50117 1...... 50931, 51922 48006, 48208, 49303, 49313, 65 ...... 49674, 50420, 50423, 229...... 46603, 50117 31...... 50949 49669, 50128, 50891, 51264, 50913, 50915 230...... 46603, 50117 40...... 46677 51901, 51903, 52275, 52278, 67 ...... 49676, 50918, 50920 232...... 46603, 47438 49...... 46677 52283, 52388 Proposed Rules: 239...... 46603, 50117 51...... 51310 59...... 49669 67 ...... 46701, 46705, 46715, 240 ...... 46603, 46960, 50117 54 ...... 46677, 52442, 52475 60...... 49669 46716, 50443, 50446, 50952, 249 ...... 46603, 46960, 50117 602...... 52442 61...... 49669 50960 270...... 50117 62...... 49669 29 CFR 274...... 50117 63...... 49669 45 CFR Proposed Rules: 2590...... 46621 65...... 49669 147...... 46621 1 ...... 45724, 45730, 47526 4022...... 50413 72...... 48208, 50129 Proposed Rules: 23 ...... 45724, 45730, 47526 Proposed Rules: 75...... 50129 147...... 52442, 52475 39...... 45730, 47526 2590...... 52442, 52475 78...... 48208 155...... 51202 71...... 46212 82...... 47451, 49669 157...... 51202 229...... 47948 30 CFR 97...... 48208 170...... 48769 230...... 47948, 49698 Proposed Rules: 147...... 49669 239...... 47948 917...... 50436 180 ...... 49318, 50893, 50898, 46 CFR 240...... 46668 943...... 50708 50904 Proposed Rules: 249...... 47948 1206...... 52294 282...... 49669 1 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 300 ...... 49324, 50133, 50414, 2...... 47531, 49976 18 CFR 31 CFR 51266 10 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 35...... 49842 10...... 49650 374...... 49669 11 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 260...... 52253 1010...... 45689 704...... 50816 12 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 292...... 50663 707...... 49669 13 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 Proposed Rules: 32 CFR 710...... 50816 14 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 357...... 46668 159...... 49650 711...... 50816 15 ...... 45908, 46217, 49976 319...... 49658, 49659 721...... 47996 28...... 51317 19 CFR 323...... 49661 745...... 47918 136...... 49976 159...... 50883 763...... 49669 137...... 49976 Proposed Rules: 33 CFR Proposed Rules: 138...... 49976 10...... 51914 100...... 52236 50...... 46084, 48073 139...... 49976

VerDate Mar 15 2010 20:32 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\22AUCU.LOC 22AUCU sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Reader Aids iii

140...... 49976 225...... 52132, 52133 571...... 48009 50 CFR 141...... 49976 245...... 52139 595...... 47078 17 ...... 46632, 47490, 48722, 142...... 49976 252 ...... 52133, 52138, 52139 1002...... 46628 49542, 50052, 50680 143...... 49976 1401...... 50141 1515...... 51848 18...... 47010 1402...... 50141 144...... 49976 1520...... 51848 80...... 46150 401...... 47095, 50713 1415...... 50141 1522...... 51848 622...... 50143, 51905 1417...... 50141 47 CFR 1540...... 51848 635...... 49368 1419...... 50141 1544...... 51848 1...... 49333, 49364 1436...... 50141 648 ...... 47491, 47492, 51272, 1546...... 51848 52286 2...... 49364 1452...... 50141 1548...... 51848 25...... 49364, 50425 1816...... 46206 679 ...... 45709, 46207, 46208, 1549...... 51848 64...... 47469, 47476 6101...... 50926 47083, 47493 73...... 49364, 49697 6103...... 50926 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 90...... 51271 6104...... 50926 171...... 50332, 51324 17 ...... 46218, 46234, 46238, Proposed Rules: 6105...... 50926 172...... 50332, 51324 46251, 46362, 47123, 47133, 9...... 47114 9903...... 49365 173...... 50332, 51324 48777, 49202, 49408, 49412, 36...... 49401 Proposed Rules: 174...... 50332, 51324 50542, 50971, 51929, 52297 54...... 49401, 50969 42...... 48776, 50714 175...... 50332 20...... 48694 61...... 49401 204...... 52297 176...... 50332 223...... 50447, 50448 64...... 49401 252...... 52297 177...... 50332 224 ...... 49412, 50447, 50448 69...... 49401 178...... 50332 622...... 46718, 50979 49 CFR 179...... 51272 648...... 45742, 47533 48 CFR 228...... 50360 180...... 51272 660...... 50449 201...... 52139 383...... 50433 531...... 48758 665...... 46719 209...... 52138 390...... 50433 533...... 48758 679 ...... 49417, 52148, 52301 216...... 52133 563...... 47478 580...... 48101 680...... 49423

VerDate Mar 15 2010 20:32 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\22AUCU.LOC 22AUCU sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES iv Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Reader Aids

Register but may be ordered H.R. 2715/P.L. 112–28 enacted public laws. To in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual To provide the Consumer subscribe, go to http:// LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS pamphlet) form from the Product Safety Commission listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Superintendent of Documents, with greater authority and publaws-l.html This is a continuing list of U.S. Government Printing discretion in enforcing the public bills from the current Office, Washington, DC 20402 consumer product safety laws, session of Congress which (phone, 202–512–1808). The and for other purposes. (Aug. Note: This service is strictly have become Federal laws. It text will also be made 12, 2011; 125 Stat. 273) for E-mail notification of new may be used in conjunction available on the Internet from Last List August 5, 2011 laws. The text of laws is not with ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public Laws GPO’s Federal Digital System available through this service. Update Service) on 202–741– (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/ PENS cannot respond to 6043. This list is also fdsys. Some laws may not yet Public Laws Electronic specific inquiries sent to this available online at http:// be available. Notification Service address. www.archives.gov/federal- (PENS) register/laws. H.R. 2553/P.L. 112–27 Airport and Airway Extension The text of laws is not Act of 2011, Part IV (Aug. 5, PENS is a free electronic mail published in the Federal 2011; 125 Stat. 270) notification service of newly

VerDate Mar 15 2010 20:32 Aug 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\22AUCU.LOC 22AUCU sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES