<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="To:">
<META name="creation-date" content="18/09/2009 09:14:21 ">
<TITLE>To:</TITLE>

- 1 -
Evaluation of the Potential for Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy in the United States
Joshua T. Cohen
Keith Duggar
George M. Gray
Silvia Kreindel
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
Harvard School of Public Health
Hatim Abdelrahman
Tsegaye HabteMariam
David Oryang
Berhanu Tameru
Center for Computational Epidemiology
College of Veterinary Medicine
Tuskegee University
November 26, 2001

- 2 -
Acknowledgments
This project benefited from information and advice from many individuals.  Any errors or
misstatements are due to the authors, not the many contributors.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Nathan E. Bauer (USDA-FSIS), Paul Brown (NIH),
Linda Detwiler (USDA-APHIS), David W. Harlan (Taylor Byproducts, Inc), and Pedro Piccardo
(Indiana University) for their scientific input and critical review of different sections of the
manuscript. In addition we would like to thank the following individuals for providing scientific
input and support:
John Adams, National Milk Producers Federation; Gary Adams, Texas A&M University; Judd
Aiken, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Steve Anderson, USDA-FSIS; Haluk Anil, Bristol
University; David Asher, FDA; Harry Baker, Cambridge University; Mike Barry, Oklahoma City
Zoo; Robin Bolin, ConAgra Beef Company; David Bolton, New York State Institute for Basic
Research; Daniel Bohnenblust, Swiss Federal Statistical Office; Robert Brady, USDA-APHIS;
Gerald R. Bratton, Texas A&M University; Robert Brewer, USDA-FSIS; Moira Bruce, Institute
for Animal Health, Neuropathogenesis Unit, Edinburgh; Bryan Dierlam, American Cattlemen's
Association; Herbert Budka, University of Vienna; Burt Mitchel, FDA; Terry Caviness, Caviness
Packing Company; Richard Cawthorrne, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK; Megna
Chakrabarti, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Lily Chounlamountry, USDA-FSIS; Nick
Chesnut, Union County Feedlot, New Mexico; Christl Donnelly, Oxford University; Nguyen
Chau, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; John Clay, Dairy Records; Michelle Colby, Virginia-
Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine; Phillip Comer, DNV; Nancy Cook, Pet
Food Institute; Maria Correa, North Carolina State University; Barbara Corso, USDA-APHIS;
Randall Cutlip, USDA-Craig White, USDA-FSIS; Ken Crendell, DHI, UTHA; Arthur Davis,
USDA, NVSL; Dyan Daly, National Food Center, Dublin; Dave Dargatz, USDA-APHIS; Marcus
Doherr, BVET, Switzerland; Basil Eastwood, USDA-CSREES; Dan Englejohn, USDA-FSIS;
Lisa Ferguson, USDA-APHIS; Neil Ferguson, Oxford University; J. Fetrow, University of
Minnesota; Lloyd Floyd, Kansas Dept. of Wildlife & Parks; Don Franco, National Renderers
Association, George Graber, FDA; Azra Ghani, Oxford University; Randy Gordon, National
Grain & Feed Association; Daniel Gould, Colorado State University; Temple Grandin, University
of Illiniois; John Gray, USDA-APHIS; Dicky Griffin, University of Nebraska; Scott Hafner,
USDA-APHIS; Rachael Hamilton, American Meat Science Association; Jeff Hansen, Murphy
Farm Inc; Michael Hansen, Consumer’s Union; David Harbour, Bristol University; Dagmar
Heim, BVET, Office Veterinaire Federal,  Switzerland; Jud Heinrichs, Penn State University;
Christopher Helps, Bristol University; Peter Hewson, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food, UK; Harold Hodges, BFD Corporation; Paul Honeyman, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, UK; Will Hueston, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine; Nora
Hunter, Institute for Animal Health, Neuropathogenesis Unit, Edinburgh; James Ironside, CJD
Surveillance Unit, Edinburgh; J Hamir, USDA-ARS-NADC; Alan Jenny, USDA-APHIS, NVLS;
Janice Miller, USDA-ARS, NADC; Jeffrey Martin, VLA Lasswade, Scotland; Mark Hall,
USDA-APHIS-NVLS; John Honstead, FDA; Sherri Kochevar, ConAgra Beef Company; Chuck
Lambert, American Cattlemen’s Beef Association; John Lawrance, University of Iowa Extension
Service; T. Lindley, TAMA; Terry Lutz, USDA-AMS; Ernest Justus Lücker, -Liebig University;
Donna Malloy, USDA-APHIS; Jeronimo Mamaclay, USDA-FSIS; Danny Matthews, Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK; Patrick McCaskey, USDA-FSIS; Dan McChesney, FDA;
Michael Miller, Colorado Division of Wildlife; Ray Millers, BFD Corporation; Sarah Muirhead,
Feedstuff Magazine; Dennis K. Mullane, Taylor By-Products, Inc; H.D. Norman, USDA-ARS;
Greg Oliver,  Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; Arnold Paft, USDA-NAH; George

- 3 -
Patrick, Taylor Packing Co. Inc; Alan Pernaa, United Cooperative Farmers Inc; Jody Pinter,
AgSource Cooperative Services; Burt Prichett, FDA; Teresa Platt, Fur Commission USA; Ilpo
Pölönen, Finnish Fur Breeders' Association; Jim Quigley, Animal Protein Corporation, Inc;
Rosalind Ridley, Cambridge University; Elisa Rubi, Direccion General de Salud Animal, Mexico;
R. Rubinstein, NYS Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities, Staten Island,
NY; Larry Satter, USDA-ARS; Glen Schmidt, Colorado State University; Richard Sellers,
American Feed Industry Association; Chuck Schuad, University of New Hampshire; Mary Jo
Schmerr, USDA-ARS-NADC; Craig Shultz. USDA-FSIS; Bill Smith, USDA-APHIS; L. Smith,
National Nutrition Program Advisor, USDA; Charlie Sniffen, Miner Institute; Walt Solonynka,
Conagra Beef Company; Robert Somerville, Institute for Animal Health, Neuropathogenesis
Unit, Edinburgh; John Spouge, DNV; Richard Theise, International Natural Casing Association;
David Thomas, Extension Sheep Specialist, Madison, WI; Judy Thompson, Canadian Food
Inspection Agency; Donald Upton, United Cooperative Farmers Inc; Andrea Vicari, North
Carolina State University; James Voss, Colorado State University; Paul Walker, Illinois State
University; Gary Weber, National Cattlemen's Beef Association; Gerald Wells, Central
Veterinary Laboratory, UK; Marion Weybridge, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
UK; John Wilesmith, Central Veterinary Laboratory, UK; Jim Wilkus, USDA-FSIS; Robert Will,
CJD Surveillance Unit, Edinburgh; Elizabeth Williams, University of Wyoming; Chris Toyne,
Agriculture and Fisheries Branch, ABARE, Australia.

- 4 -
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
2 Background............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1
Overview of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs)................................................ 3
2.1.1 Transmissibility....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2
The Species Barrier................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.3 Susceptibility........................................................................................................................... 8
2.2
The Origin of the BSE Epidemic in the UK..................................................................................13
2.2.1
Scrapie in Sheep.................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2
Infrequent Sporadic BSE ...................................................................................................... 15
2.2.3
Toxic Agents and Other Hypotheses..................................................................................... 16
<IP_ADDRESS>
Organophosphate (OP) Pesticides..................................................................................... 16
<IP_ADDRESS> Copper Deficiency ............................................................................................................ 17
<IP_ADDRESS>
Heavy Metal Exposure...................................................................................................... 17
<IP_ADDRESS> Autoimmune Disease ........................................................................................................ 18
<IP_ADDRESS>
Use of Pituitary Hormones................................................................................................ 18
<IP_ADDRESS> Wild African Antelope...................................................................................................... 19
2.3
Sources of BSE Infectivity............................................................................................................ 19
2.3.1 Spontaneous BSE.................................................................................................................. 19
2.3.2
Importation of BSE Infectivity into the United States .......................................................... 21
<IP_ADDRESS>
Importation of Live Cattle from the UK ........................................................................... 21
<IP_ADDRESS>
Importation of Cattle from Continental Europe ................................................................ 21
<IP_ADDRESS>
Importation of Cattle from Non-European Countries ....................................................... 22
<IP_ADDRESS>
Imported MBM and Feed.................................................................................................. 22
2.3.3 Domestic Scrapie .................................................................................................................. 23
2.3.4
Chronic Wasting Disease:  Oral Exposure............................................................................ 24
2.3.5
Chronic Wasting Disease:  Lateral Transmission ................................................................. 26
2.3.6 Mink...................................................................................................................................... 26
2.3.7 Pigs........................................................................................................................................ 27
<IP_ADDRESS>
Potential Infectivity in Pigs due to TSE Infection............................................................. 28
<IP_ADDRESS>
Potential Infectivity in Materials Consumed by Pigs........................................................ 30
2.3.8 Poultry................................................................................................................................... 31
2.3.9 Recycled Products................................................................................................................. 31
<IP_ADDRESS> Plate Waste........................................................................................................................ 32
<IP_ADDRESS> Gelatin............................................................................................................................... 33
<IP_ADDRESS> Milk................................................................................................................................... 33
<IP_ADDRESS>
Blood and blood products ................................................................................................. 34
<IP_ADDRESS> Tallow ............................................................................................................................... 34
2.4
Measures Taken to Protect Against BSE ......................................................................................34
2.4.1
General Issues Related to the Surveillance of BSE and the Deactivation of the BSE Agent 35
2.4.2
Actions to Address BSE in the UK....................................................................................... 37
2.4.3
Actions to Address BSE in Europe ....................................................................................... 39
2.4.4
Measures to Prevent the Establishment of BSE in the United States Cattle Population ....... 41
2.4.5
BSE Surveillance in the United States ..................................................................................44
3 Methodology......................................................................................................................................... 46
3.1
Simulation Model and Base Case Assumptions............................................................................ 46
3.1.1
Cattle Population Dynamics.................................................................................................. 47

- 5 -
<IP_ADDRESS>
Size of Cattle Population, Birth Rates, Slaughter Rates, and Rates of Death due to Other
Causes
48
<IP_ADDRESS>
Cattle Consumption of Bypass protein and Blood Meal...................................................49
<IP_ADDRESS> BSE Dose-Response ......................................................................................................... 50
<IP_ADDRESS> Maternal Transmission...................................................................................................... 50
<IP_ADDRESS>
The BSE Incubation Period, and Time Until Death Caused by BSE................................ 51
3.1.2
The Slaughter Process........................................................................................................... 51
<IP_ADDRESS>
Level of Infectivity and Distribution of Infectivity Throughout the Carcass.................... 51
<IP_ADDRESS>
Antemortem Inspection...................................................................................................... 54
<IP_ADDRESS> Stunning ............................................................................................................................ 55
<IP_ADDRESS> Exsanguination.................................................................................................................. 56
<IP_ADDRESS>
Disposition of Brain.......................................................................................................... 56
<IP_ADDRESS>
Splitting and Aerosolization.............................................................................................. 56
<IP_ADDRESS>
Disposition of the Spinal Cord and Dorsal Root Ganglia ................................................. 57
<IP_ADDRESS> Postmortem Inspection...................................................................................................... 59
<IP_ADDRESS> Processing ......................................................................................................................... 60
3.1.3
Rendering and Feed Production............................................................................................ 60
<IP_ADDRESS> Rendering Inactivation...................................................................................................... 61
<IP_ADDRESS>
Meat and Bone Meal Production....................................................................................... 61
<IP_ADDRESS> Feed Production ................................................................................................................ 62
<IP_ADDRESS> On Farm Feeding .............................................................................................................. 64
3.1.4
Potential Human Exposure.................................................................................................... 65
3.2
Impact of Alternative Assumptions on Cattle Infected and Human BSE Exposure ..................... 67
3.2.1
Maternal BSE transmission Assumptions............................................................................. 68
3.2.2
Slaughter Process Assumptions ............................................................................................ 68
3.2.3
Render and Feed Production Process Assumptions .............................................................. 69
3.2.4
Proportion of Tissues Recovered for Human Consumption.................................................. 70
3.2.5
Proportion of Animals That Die on Farm that Are Rendered ............................................... 70
3.2.6
The Possibility That BSE-Infected Cattle Carry Infectivity in Their Blood ......................... 70
3.2.7
The Possibility that Humans are Exposed to BSE Infectivity in Trigeminal Ganglia........... 71
3.3
The Base Case:  Impact of Alternative Sources of Infectivity ...................................................... 71
3.3.1 Spontaneous BSE.................................................................................................................. 71
3.3.2
Importation of Infected Cattle............................................................................................... 73
3.3.3 Domestic Scrapie .................................................................................................................. 74
3.3.4
Chronic Wasting Disease:  Oral Exposure............................................................................ 75
3.3.5
Chronic Wasting Disease:  Lateral Transmission ................................................................. 77
3.3.6 Mink...................................................................................................................................... 77
3.3.7 Pigs........................................................................................................................................ 79
3.3.8 Poultry................................................................................................................................... 79
3.3.9 Recycled Waste..................................................................................................................... 79
3.4
Alternative Scenarios Evaluated Using the Simulation Model ..................................................... 79
3.4.1 Switzerland ........................................................................................................................... 79
3.4.2
Spontaneous Disease as a Potential Source of Infectivity in the U.S.................................... 82
3.4.3
Cattle Imported into the U.S. from the UK During the 1980s .............................................. 82
3.4.4
Risk Management:  Specified Risk Materials (SRM) Ban.................................................... 83
3.4.5
Risk Management:  A Ban on Rendering Animals that Die on the Farm ............................. 84
4 Results................................................................................................................................................... 85
4.1 Base Case...................................................................................................................................... 86
4.2
Sensitivity Analyses and Alternative Assumptions.......................................................................87
4.2.1 Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................................................... 88
4.2.2
Inherent Infectivity in Blood................................................................................................. 89
4.2.3
Harvesting of Trigeminal Ganglia ........................................................................................ 89
4.3
Alternative Sources of Infectivity ................................................................................................. 89
4.3.1 Spontaneous .......................................................................................................................... 90
4.3.2 Imports.................................................................................................................................. 90

- 6 -
4.3.3 Scrapie .................................................................................................................................. 91
4.4 Alternative Scenarios .................................................................................................................... 92
4.4.1 Switzerland ........................................................................................................................... 92
4.4.2
Spontaneous With no Feed Ban ............................................................................................ 93
4.4.3
Cattle Imported from the UK in the 1980s............................................................................ 94
4.4.4
Specified Risk Material Ban ................................................................................................. 96
4.4.5
Prohibition on Rendering Animals that Die on the Farm...................................................... 96
4.5 Summary....................................................................................................................................... 97
References: ................................................................................................................................................. 101
Figures
Appendix 1: Base Case Assumptions
Appendix 2: Assumptions for Simulations Other than the Base Case
Appendix 3A: Results – Tables
Appendix 3B:  Results – Figures
Appendix 3C: Description of Model Output Tables and Graphs

Executive Summary
- i -
Executive Summary
In 1998 the United States Department of Agriculture asked the Harvard Center for Risk
Analysis to evaluate the robustness of U.S. measures to prevent the spread of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”) to animals and humans if it were to arise in this
country.  BSE is a member of a family of diseases that includes scrapie in sheep and goats,
chronic wasting disease in certain North American deer and elk, transmissible mink
encephalopathy, and the human ailments Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease and Kuru.
We have developed a probabilistic simulation model to help characterize the
consequences of introducing BSE into the U.S. via various means.  Our model allows us to
predict, for example, the number of newly infected animals that would result from introduction of
BSE, the time course of the disease following its introduction, and the potential for human
exposure to infectious tissues.  We evaluate key processes and procedures that make the spread of
disease more or less likely. Results are presented as distributions reflecting the probabilistic
nature of the model and the processes simulated.
Our analysis finds that the U.S. is highly resistant to any introduction of BSE or a similar
disease.  BSE is extremely unlikely to become established in the U.S.  For example, in a
hypothetical scenario in which ten cattle infected with BSE are imported into the U.S., on average
only three new cases of BSE would occur.  Moreover, the disease is virtually certain to be
eliminated from the country within 20 years after its introduction.  These results assume that the
conditions affecting the spread of BSE in the U.S. would remain unchanged for the 20 years
following its introduction.  The new cases of BSE would come primarily from lack of compliance
with the regulations enacted to protect animal feed.  The import of one sick animal yields on
average less than one new BSE case in 20 years and the disease and the disease is likely to be
quickly eliminated from the U.S. following its introduction.  Similarly, there appears to be no
potential for an epidemic of BSE resulting from scrapie, chronic wasting disease, or other cross-
species transmission of similar diseases found in the U.S.  Even if they existed, these hypothetical
sources of BSE could give rise to only one to two cases per year.  Similarly, if the disease does
indeed occur spontaneously in cattle, as some have suggested, it would result in one to two cases
per year with little spread.

Executive Summary
-
ii -
Only a small amount of potentially dangerous tissues would reach the human food supply
and be available for possible human consumption.  We express the amount of infectivity in terms
of cattle oral ID s for the purpose of quantifying both animal and human exposure to this agent.
50
A cattle oral ID
50
is the amount of infectious tissue that would, on average, cause 50% of exposed
cattle to develop BSE.  The relationship between human exposure quantified in terms of cattle
oral ID s and likelihood of human disease is unknown, but European authorities suggest that the
50
cattle disease may be 1,000 to 1,000,000 times less virulent in humans (SSC, 1999, SSC, 2000a).
In the entire 20 year period following the import of ten BSE-infected cattle, the mean estimate for
the amount of infectivity potentially available for human exposure is 35 cattle oral ID s.  The
50
greatest sources of infectivity include consumption of cattle brain, spinal cord, and meat derived
from advanced meat recovery systems.  Some potential exposure would result from the presence
of spinal cord in certain bone-in cuts of beef, like T-bone steaks, and consumption of cattle
intestines.  Potential human exposure resulting from spontaneous disease or cross-species
transmission of scrapie are predicted to be less than 100 cattle oral ID s over 20 years.
50
Even in an extreme case, which we characterize using the 95 percentile of the output
th
distribution from the simulation, the import of ten animals leads to only 11 new cases of BSE
over twenty years.  The 95 percentile value for potential human exposure is 170 cattle oral ID s
th
50
over 20 years, approximately five times the mean value.  These predictions can be compared with
the experience in the United Kingdom, where it is estimated that there were nearly one million
infected animals and it is likely millions of cattle oral ID
50s
available for potential human
exposure.
Measures in the U.S. that are most effective at reducing the spread of BSE include the
ban on the import of live ruminants and ruminant meat and bone meal from the UK (since 1989)
and all of Europe (since 1997) by USDA/APHIS, and the feed ban instituted by the Food and
Drug Administration in 1997 to prevent recycling of potentially infectious cattle tissues.  This
feed ban greatly reduces the chance that BSE will spread from a sick animal back to other cattle
through feed.  Our model reflects incomplete compliance with the FDA feed ban and we evaluate
the potential risks of exceptions to the ban.  Measures instituted in meat packing plants by the
industry and USDA/FSIS have reduced the opportunity for infectious tissues to contaminate
human food.

Executive Summary
-
iii -
Specific pathways or practices that would contribute the most to the spread of BSE if it
were introduced into the U.S. relate to compliance with the FDA feed ban and include misfeeding
on the farm and the mislabeling of feed and feed products prohibited for consumption by cattle.
The disposition of cattle that die on the farm would also have a substantial influence on the
spread of BSE if this disease were introduced into the U.S.  Factors that influence potential
human exposure include the handling of brain and spinal cord in processing plants and how well
inspectors would detect animals with BSE at slaughter.
Our model is not amenable to formal validation because there are no controlled
experiments in which the introduction and consequences of BSE introduction to a country has
been monitored and measured.  However, as a test of the model’s plausibility, we modeled the
small BSE outbreak identified in Switzerland following the introduction of BSE infectivity from
the UK.  Working with experts in Switzerland, we identified appropriate values for model
parameters necessary to appropriately characterize that country’s practices and procedures and
then simulated the introduction of BSE infectivity.  Our simulation took into account risk
management actions, such as feed bans instituted by the Swiss.  The model’s predictions were
reasonably close to empirical observations.  For example, the model predicted that during the
Swiss outbreak, there would be 170 animals that developed clinical signs of disease.  To date, the
Swiss have detected 398 animals with BSE.  The time course of the outbreak predicted by the
model also reasonably resembled the pattern observed in Switzerland.  The ability of the model to
reasonably replicate the magnitude and time course of the Swiss outbreak gives some confidence
in the structure of our model, especially in light of the many unknown factors associated with this
episode.
We also evaluated the potential for BSE to have entered the U.S. prior to the 1989 ban on
the import of UK cattle.  BSE has not been detected in the U.S. despite 12 years of active
surveillance of high-risk animals.  Yet several groups, including the European Union in their
Geographically Based Risk Assessment of the U.S. (SSC, 2000b), have highlighted the 334
animals brought into the U.S. from the UK between 1980 and 1989.  These animals were
imported as breeding stock, not as beef or dairy production animals.  This fact is likely to have
reduced their potential for exposure to BSE before their export from the UK.  In addition, none of
these animals came from a farm on which there was a case of BSE in animals from the same birth
cohort (same birth farm and year).  Many came into the U.S. before BSE was even a recognized
disease (the first case was confirmed in the UK in 1986).  The USDA has identified and traced

Executive Summary
- iv -
the disposition of these animals and has verified that 161 were disposed of in a manner that poses
no risk to humans or other animals.  However, the Department has not been able to conclusively
make this determination for the remaining 173 animals.  Using data identifying the year of birth,
the year of import, the date of the animal’s last known sighting, and information characterizing
the time course of the disease following infection, we have estimated the theoretical amount of
BSE infectivity that could have theoretically been introduced into the U.S. from these 173
animals.  We then used this estimate in our model to predict the possible consequences in the U.S.
Our analysis concludes that there is more than an 80% chance that the import of these
animals resulted in no exposure of U.S. cattle to BSE infectivity.  Even if U.S. animals were
exposed to BSE, there is a significant chance that the exposure resulted in no new cases of
disease.  Our analysis indicates that there is only a small chance that BSE spread to U.S. cattle but
that the number of cases was sufficiently small to avoid detection by U.S. government
surveillance.  The analysis also shows that if these imports did introduce BSE into the U.S.,
measures taken by the government and industry during the last five years will have arrested the
disease and begun to eradicate it.
Our evaluation of potential risk mitigation actions highlights potential measures to further
reduce the already low likelihood that BSE could spread to cattle or contaminate human food if it
were to arise.  Prohibiting the rendering of animals that die on the farm, possibly of BSE,
removes a great deal of potential contamination in the animal feed chain and reduces average
predicted cases of BSE following introduction of ten infected cattle by 77%.  Implementation of a
UK-style ban on specified risk material (e.g., spinal cords, brains, vertebral columns) from both
human food and animal feed reduces the predicted number of BSE cases in cattle by 80% and the
potential human exposure by 95%.  These measures serve as examples of the types of evaluations
of alternative risk management strategies that can be conducted using the model.
In summary, measures taken by the U.S. government and industry make the U.S. robust
against the spread of BSE to animals or humans should it be introduced into this country.
Preventing sick animals or contaminated feed from entering the country, ensuring compliance
with the FDA feed ban, and reducing the potential for infectious tissues to enter the animal or
human food supply will ensure that these risks remain low. If BSE has been introduced into the
U.S., as has been suggested by some observers, the course of the disease has been arrested and it
is destined for eradication by the measures currently in place.

Executive Summary


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66974-66975]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24018]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1347; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-25]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Morganton, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for Foothills Regional Airport,
Morganton, NC, by updating the airport's name and geographic
coordinates. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of Fiddlers NDB
would be updated. Also, Grace Hospital would be removed from the
descriptor, as all instrument approaches into the hospital have been
canceled. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2022-1347; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-25 at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend airspace in Morganton, NC, to support IFR operations
in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2022-1347 and Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-25) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2022-1347; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-25.'' The postcard
will be dated/time-stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350,1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective
September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Foothills

Regional Airport (formerly Morganton-Lenoir Airport), Morganton, NC, by
updating the airport's name and geographic coordinates. This action
would also update the Fiddlers NDB geographic coordinates to coincide
with the FAA's database and remove Grace Hospital from the descriptor,
as instrument approaches no longer exist for the hospital. Also,
reference to Hickory, NC, Class E airspace would be removed, as the
airspace is shared.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Morganton, NC [Amended]

Foothills Regional Airport, NC
    (Lat. 35[deg]49'13'' N, long. 81[deg]36'41'' W)
Fiddlers NDB
    (Lat. 35[deg]42'61'' N, long. 81[deg]40'28'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the
surface within a 9.5-mile radius of the Foothills Regional Airport
and within 2.5 miles each side of the 205[deg] bearing from Fiddlers
NDB, extending from the 9.5-mile radius to 7 miles southwest of the
NDB.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 28, 2022.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-24018 Filed 11-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55610-55611]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17517]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 147

[EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0073; FRL 9916-03-OW]

State of Louisiana Underground Injection Control Program; Class
VI Program Revision Application; Notice of Availability of New
Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document supplements the proposed ``State of Louisiana
Underground Injection Control Program; Class VI Program Revision
Application'' rule of May 4, 2023, to approve a revision to the State's
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) section 1422 UIC program to include
Class VI injection well primary enforcement responsibility (primacy).
On June 30, 2023, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR)
supplemented its Class VI primacy application to include Act No. 378
(HB 571), which revised portions of Louisiana law relevant to LDNR's
application. On June 14, 2023, Act No. 378 was signed into law and went
into effect during the comment period for EPA's proposal. This document
presents and requests public comment on LDNR's supplement to its
application, which was not available in the docket EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0073
at the time of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) May 4, 2023,
proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 15, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2023-0073, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Kelly, Drinking Water
Infrastructure Development Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-3887; or Lisa Pham, U.S. EPA Region 6, Groundwater/UIC Section
(Mail code WDDG), 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75720-2102;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Both can be reached by emailing:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-
0073, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to
EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. If you need to submit CBI, contact Lisa Pham,
contact information available in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the
full

EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia
submissions; and general guidance on making effective comments.

II. General Information

    This document presents LDNR's supplement to its primacy application
regarding Louisiana State Act No. 378. This act was signed into law and
went into effect on June 14, 2023, during the comment period for EPA's
proposed rulemaking, ``State of Louisiana Underground Injection Control
Program; Class VI Program Revision Application'' (88 FR 28450, May 4,
2023). LDNR thereafter supplemented its Class VI primacy application to
incorporate the new act, which revised portions of Louisiana law
relevant to LDNR's Class VI primacy application. In LDNR's letter
supplementing its application, LDNR stated that it found that Act 378
had no substantive impact on its pending application. The purpose of
this document is to provide public notice and the opportunity for
comment specific to LDNR's supplement to its primacy application
regarding Louisiana State Act No. 378, which was not available for
public review and comment at the time of the proposal. EPA is not
reopening the overall comment period for the Agency's proposed approval
of Louisiana's Class VI primacy application. EPA continues to review
the comments received on the Agency's proposed approval and will
address those comments and the comments submitted in response to this
document in the final action.
    Act 378 revised portions of Louisiana law relevant to LDNR's Class
VI primacy application. For instance, it codified a parish notification
requirement for permit applications for Class VI wells (and Class V
wells related to geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide). It also
codified Class VI quarterly and twenty-four-hour reporting
requirements. It also revised Louisiana's long term liability provision
in Louisiana Revised Statute (LA R.S.) 30:1109. As mentioned in the May
4, 2023, proposal, EPA is aware that stakeholders have raised concerns
about this provision. EPA has reviewed Act 378, including its revisions
to the long-term liability provision at LA R.S. 30:1109, and continues
to propose approving Louisiana's application for Class VI primacy. EPA
has determined that the application as supplemented continues to meet
all applicable requirements for approval under SDWA section 1422.
    Persons interested in the Class VI UIC program established by the
State of Louisiana, and its proposed incorporation under Section 1422
of the SDWA are encouraged to read the new information presented and
respond to this document. Additionally, owners and operators, States,
Tribes, and State co-regulators involved in geologic sequestration
activities in Louisiana may also wish to comment on this publication.
EPA is not reopening the overall comment period for the Agency's
proposed approval of Louisiana's Class VI primacy application. EPA
continues to review the comments received on the Agency's proposed rule
approval and will address those comments and the comments submitted in
response to this document in the final action.

Radhika Fox,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-17517 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3627-3628]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1126]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0065; FRL-9255-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Requirements for the
Approval and Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State,
Territorial, Local, and Tribal Agencies (Renewal), EPA ICR Number
1643.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0264

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 22,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0065, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail
to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina Ndoh, OAQPS/SPPD, D205-02,
Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-
541-2750; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64722), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0065, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of
Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal
Agencies (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1643.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0264.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2011.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This information collection is an application from State,
territorial, local, or tribal agencies (S/L/Ts) for delegation of
regulations developed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act). The
five options for delegation are straight delegation, rule adjustment,
rule substitution, equivalency by permit, or state program approval.
The information is needed and used to determine if the entity
submitting an application has met the criteria established in the
subpart E rule, codified as 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, in accordance
with section 112(l) of the Act. This information is necessary and
required for the Administrator to determine the acceptability of
approving the S/L/T's rules, requirements or programs in lieu of the
Federal section 112 rules or programs. Additionally, it is also
necessary for the proper performance of our function, and will be used
to ensure that the subpart E approval criteria have been met. The
collection of information is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 18
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State, territorial, local, or tribal
agencies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 119 S/L/Ts for maximum achievable
control technology standards and 79 S/L/Ts for area source standards
per year.

    Frequency of Response: Occasionally, one time per delegation
request.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 37,107 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: About $1,355,100. This includes an
estimated labor burden cost of $1,352,000 and an estimated cost of
$3,100 for operation and maintenance costs resulting from photocopying
and postage expenses.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 25,737 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens.
    The change in burden results from: (1) A decrease in the number of
S/L/Ts taking delegation, (2) an increase in the number of occurrences
related to the number of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) delegated, and (3) a change in the distribution of
S/L/Ts using each option when delegating Maximum Achievable Control
Technologies (MACTs). These changes are discussed below.
    The total number of occurrences increased from 399 to 5,119 for
MACT standards partially due to the number of MACT standards being
delegated increasing from 24 to 40. However, the number of delegations
decreased from 124 to 119. The significant increase was largely due to
a calculation error in determining the number of straight delegations
in the previous ICR. The previous ICR estimated 12 occurrences of
straight delegations during the clearance period while we calculated
4,719 occurrences for the upcoming 3-year period. The total number of
occurrences decreased for area source standards from 4,177 to 920 due
to the number of area source standards decreasing from 40 to 11 and
number of delegations dropping from 99 to 79.
    Second, based on the experience the EPA's Regional Air Toxics
Coordinators have had with the subpart E program, S/L/Ts' use of the
various delegation options has changed for MACTs. Straight Delegation
is still the primary delegation mechanism and has significantly
increased in frequency since the previous ICR. However, we found that
S/L/Ts are using the Rule Adjustment Option and the Rule Substitution
Option with greater frequency than previously assumed. Generally,
sources do not use the State Program Approval Option.
    Overall, the respondent hour burden has decreased. While there is
an overall increase in the amount of occurrences, the overall burden
decreases by 41 percent due to the significant increase in use of the
straight delegation option which requires less hours than the other
options.
    While mailing costs have increased, we are requesting a decrease in
the reporting and recordkeeping cost burden due to an error in the
postal costs reported in the previous ICR. Some of the EPA mailing
costs were incorrectly included in the sums for respondent costs, thus
decreasing the overall costs.

    Dated: January 12, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-1126 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 33775]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14320]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1974-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Tennessee; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-1974-DR), dated May 1, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 1, 2011.

    Knox and Montgomery Counties for Individual Assistance.

    Blount, Campbell, Fentress, Franklin, Giles, Hickman, Houston,
Humphreys, Jackson, Knox, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, Loudon,
Marshall, Montgomery, Moore, Perry, Pickett, Polk, Scott,
Sequatchie, Smith, Sullivan, and Wayne Counties for Public
Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-14320 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P