[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 50 (Friday, March 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14694-14697]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2016]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Chief executive officer of                                    Online location of letter of map                            Community
         State and county          Location and case No.             community               Community map repository                 revision                Date of modification       No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado:
    Broomfield...................  City and County of     The Honorable Patrick Quinn,    Engineering Department, 1      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 29, 2020..........       085073
                                    Broomfield (19-08-     Mayor, City and County of       DesCombes Drive, Broomfield,   advanceSearch.
                                    0385P).                Broomfield, 1 DesCombes         CO 80020.
                                                           Drive, Broomfield, CO 80020.
    Broomfield...................  City and County of     The Honorable Patrick Quinn,    Engineering Department, 1      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 22, 2020..........       085073
                                    Broomfield (19-08-     Mayor, City and County of       DesCombes Drive, Broomfield,   advanceSearch.
                                    0494P).                Broomfield, 1 DesCombes         CO 80020.
                                                           Drive, Broomfield, CO 80020.
    El Paso......................  City of Colorado       The Honorable John Suthers,     Pikes Peak Regional            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 4, 2020...........       080060
                                    Springs (19-08-        Mayor, City of Colorado         Development, 2880              advanceSearch.
                                    0605P).                Springs, 30 South Nevada        International Circle,
                                                           Avenue, Suite 601, Colorado     Colorado Springs, CO 80910.
                                                           Springs, CO 80903.
    El Paso......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Mark Waller,      Pikes Peak Regional            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 4, 2020...........       080059
                                    of El Paso County      President, El Paso County       Development, 2880              advanceSearch.
                                    (19-08-0605P).         Board of Commissioners, 200     International Circle,
                                                           South Cascade Avenue, Suite     Colorado Springs, CO 80910.
                                                           100, Colorado Springs, CO
                                                           80903.
    Jefferson....................  City of Westminster    The Honorable Herb Atchison,    City Hall, 4800 West 92nd      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 22, 2020..........       080008
                                    (19-08-0494P).         Mayor, City of Westminster,     Avenue, Westminster, CO        advanceSearch.
                                                           4800 West 92nd Avenue,          80031.
                                                           Westminster, CO 80031.
Connecticut:
    Fairfield....................  Town of Darien (19-01- The Honorable Jayme J.          Planning and Zoning            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 1, 2020...........       090005
                                    1081P).                Stevenson, First Selectman,     Department, 2 Renshaw Road,    advanceSearch.
                                                           Town of Darien Board of         Darien, CT 06820.
                                                           Selectmen, 2 Renshaw Road,
                                                           Room 202, Darien, CT 06820.

    New Haven....................  Town of Cheshire (20-  The Honorable Rob Oris, Jr.,    Town Hall, 84 South Main       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 15, 2020..........       090074
                                    01-0003P).             Chairman, Town of Cheshire      Street, Cheshire, CT 06410.    advanceSearch.
                                                           Council, 84 South Main
                                                           Street, Cheshire, CT 06410.
Florida: Wakulla.................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Mike Stewart,     Wakulla County Planning and    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jun. 5, 2020..........       120315
                                    of Wakulla County      Chairman, Wakulla County        Community Development          advanceSearch.
                                    (19-04-3034P).         Board of Commissioners, 3093    Department, 3093
                                                           Crawfordville Highway,          Crawfordville Highway,
                                                           Crawfordville, FL 32327.        Crawfordville, FL 32327.
Georgia: Cherokee................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Harry Johnston,   Cherokee County Engineering    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 15, 2020..........       130424
                                    of Cherokee County     Chairman, Cherokee County       Department, 1130 Bluffs        advanceSearch.
                                    (19-04-4793P).         Board of Commissioners, 1130    Parkway, Canton, GA 30114.
                                                           Bluffs Parkway, Canton, GA
                                                           30114.
Kentucky:
    Fayette......................  Lexington-Fayette      The Honorable Linda Gorton,     Lexington-Fayette Urban        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Apr. 16, 2020.........       210067
                                    Urban County,          Mayor, Lexington-Fayette        County Government Center,      advanceSearch.
                                    Government (19-04-     Urban County, Government, 200   101 East Vine Street,
                                    4057P).                East Main Street, Lexington,    Lexington, KY 40507.
                                                           KY 40507.
    Pulaski......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Steve Kelley,     Pulaski County Courthouse,     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Apr. 17, 2020.........       210197
                                    of Pulaski County      Pulaski County Judge, 100       100 North Main Street,         advanceSearch.
                                    (19-04-3595P).         North Main Street, Suite 202,   Somerset, KY 42501.
                                                           Somerset, KY 42501.
Massachusetts: Essex.............  Town of Nahant (19-01- The Honorable Richard Lombard,  Public Works Department, 334   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 12, 2020..........       250095
                                    1429P).                Chairman, Town of Nahant        Nahant Road, Nahant, MA        advanceSearch.
                                                           Board of Selectmen, 334         01908.
                                                           Nahant Road, Nahant, MA
                                                           01908.
Michigan: Washtenaw..............  City of Ann Arbor (19- The Honorable Christopher       City Hall, 301 East Huron      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 22, 2020..........       260213
                                    05-2230P).             Taylor, Mayor, City of Ann      Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48107.   advanceSearch.
                                                           Arbor, 301 East Huron Street,
                                                           Ann Arbor, MI 48107.
New Mexico: Santa Fe.............  City of Santa Fe (19-  The Honorable Alan Webber,      Building Permits Department,   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 20, 2020..........       350070
                                    06-2643P).             Mayor, City of Santa Fe, 200    200 Lincoln Avenue, Santa      advanceSearch.
                                                           Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe, NM    Fe, NM 87504.
                                                           87504.
North Carolina:
    Cumberland...................  City of Fayetteville   The Honorable Mitch Colvin,     Planning and Zoning Division,  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 25, 2020.........       370077
                                    (19-04-2019P).         Mayor, City of Fayetteville,    433 Hay Street,                advanceSearch.
                                                           433 Hay Street, Fayetteville,   Fayetteville, NC 28301.
                                                           NC 28301.
    Martin.......................  Town of Williamston    The Honorable Joyce Whichard-   Planning and Zoning            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 14, 2020..........       370157
                                    (19-04-2709P).         Brown, Mayor, Town of           Department, 102 East Main      advanceSearch.
                                                           Williamston, P.O. Box 506,      Street, Williamston, NC
                                                           Williamston, NC 27892.          27892.
Oklahoma: Canadian...............  City of El Reno (19-   The Honorable Matt White,       City Hall, 101 North Choctaw   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 14, 2020..........       405377
                                    06-2199P).             Mayor, City of El Reno, P.O.    Avenue, El Reno, OK 73036.     advanceSearch.
                                                           Drawer 700, El Reno, OK
                                                           73036.
Pennsylvania: Chester............  Township of West       Mr. Casey LaLonde, Township of  Township Hall, 1025 Paoli      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jun. 8, 2020..........       420293
                                    Goshen (19-03-         West Goshen Manager, 1025       Pike, West Chester, PA         advanceSearch.
                                    1653P).                Paoli Pike, West Chester, PA    19380.
                                                           19380.
South Carolina: Georgetown.......  Unincorporated areas   Mr. Sel Hemingway, Georgetown   Georgetown County, Building    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jun. 4, 2020..........       450085
                                    of Georgetown County   County Administrator, 716       Department, 129 Screven        advanceSearch.
                                    (19-04-6326P).         Prince Street, Georgetown, SC   Street, Georgetown, SC
                                                           29440.                          29440.
Tennessee:
    Shelby.......................  Town of Collierville   The Honorable Stan Joyner,      Department of Public           https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 8, 2020...........       470263
                                    (19-04-7494P).         Jr., Mayor, Town of             Services, 500 Keough Road,     advanceSearch.
                                                           Collierville, 500 Poplar View   Collierville, TN 38017.
                                                           Parkway, Collierville, TN
                                                           38017.

    Shelby.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Lee Harris,       Shelby County Department of    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 8, 2020...........       470214
                                    of Shelby County (18-  Mayor, Shelby County, 160       Engineering, 6463 Haley        advanceSearch.
                                    04-7494P).             North Main Street, Memphis,     Road, Memphis, TN 38134.
                                                           TN 38103.
Texas:
    Bexar........................  City of San Antonio    The Honorable Ron Nirenberg,    Transportation and Capitol     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 11, 2020..........       480045
                                    (19-06-1775P).         Mayor, City of San Antonio,     Improvements Department,       advanceSearch.
                                                           P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio,   Storm Water Division, 114
                                                           TX 78283.                       West Commerce Street, 7th
                                                                                Floor, San Antonio, TX
                                                                                78205.
    Bexar........................  City of San Antonio    The Honorable Ron Nirenberg,    Transportation and Capitol     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Apr. 13, 2020.........       480045
                                    (19-06-3807P).         Mayor, City of San Antonio,     Improvements Department,       advanceSearch.
                                                           P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio,   Storm Water Division, 114
                                                           TX 78283.                       West Commerce Street, 7th
                                                                                Floor, San Antonio, TX
                                                                                78205.
    Bexar........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff,  Bexar County Public Works      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Apr. 13, 2020.........       480035
                                    of Bexar County (19-   Bexar County Judge, 101 West    Department, 1948 Probandt      advanceSearch.
                                    06-3807P).             Nueva Street, 10th Floor, San   Street, San Antonio, TX
                                                           Antonio, TX 78205.              78214.
    McLennan.....................  City of McGregor (19-  The Honorable James S. Hering,  City Hall, 302 South Madison   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 19, 2020..........       480459
                                    06-1286P).             Mayor, City of McGregor, 302    Avenue, McGregor, TX 76657.    advanceSearch.
                                                           South Madison Avenue,
                                                           McGregor, TX 76657.
    McLennan.....................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Scott M. Felton,  McLennan County Engineering    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 19, 2020..........       480456
                                    of McLennan County     McLennan County Judge, 501      and Mapping Department, 215    advanceSearch.
                                    (19-06-1286P).         Washington Avenue, Suite 214,   North 5th Street, Suite 130,
                                                           Waco, TX 76701.                 Waco, TX 76701.
    Tarrant......................  City of Fort Worth     The Honorable Betsy Price,      Transportation and Public      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 18, 2020..........       480596
                                    (19-06-2910P).         Mayor, City of Fort Worth,      Works Department, 200 Texas    advanceSearch.
                                                           200 Texas Street, Fort Worth,   Street, Fort Worth, TX
                                                           TX 76102.                       76102.
    Travis.......................  City of Manor (19-06-  The Honorable Larry Wallace,    City Hall, 105 East Eggleston  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jun. 1, 2020..........       481027
                                    2660P).                Jr., Mayor, City of Manor,      Street, Manor, TX 78653.       advanceSearch.
                                                           P.O. Box 387, Manor, TX
                                                           78653.
    Travis.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Sarah Eckhardt,   Travis County Transportation   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jun. 1, 2020..........       481026
                                    of Travis County (19-  Travis County Judge, P.O. Box   and Natural Resources          advanceSearch.
                                    06-2660P).             1748, Austin, TX 78767.         Department, 700 Lavaca
                                                                                Street, 5th Floor, Austin,
                                                                                TX 78701.
Utah:
    Wasatch......................  Town of Wallsburg (19- The Honorable Celeni Richins,   Town Hall, 70 West Main        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 28, 2020..........       490168
                                    08-0779P).             Mayor, Town of Wallsburg, 70    Street, Wallsburg, UT 84082.   advanceSearch.
                                                           West Main Street, Wallsburg,
                                                           UT 84082.
    Wasatch......................  Unincorporated areas   Mr. Mike Davis, Wasatch County  Wasatch County Community       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        May 28, 2020..........       490164
                                    of Wasatch County      Manager, 25 North Main          Services Department, 55        advanceSearch.
                                    (19-08-0779P).         Street, Heber City, UT 84032.   South 500 East, Heber City,
                                                                                UT 84032.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-05148 Filed 3-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8877-8880]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0901]

Meunerie Sawyerville, Inc.; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment
Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
denying a request for a hearing submitted by Meunerie Sawyerville, Inc.
(Meunerie Sawyerville) and is issuing an order under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring Meunerie Sawyerville for 5
years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for
import into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that
Meunerie Sawyerville was convicted of felony offenses for conduct
relating to the importation of food into the United States. In
determining the appropriateness and period of Meunerie Sawyerville's
debarment, FDA has considered the relevant factors listed in the FD&C
Act. Meunerie Sawyerville has failed to file with the Agency
information and analyses sufficient to create a basis for a hearing
concerning this action.

DATES: The order is applicable March 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Any application by Meunerie Sawyerville for special
termination of debarment under section 306(d) of the FD&C Act
(application) may be submitted as follows:

Electronic Submissions

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. An application
submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because
your application will be made public, you are solely responsible for
ensuring that your application does not include any confidential
information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such
as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number,
or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process.
Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or
other information that identifies you in the body of your application,
that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit an application with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: Your application must include the Docket No. FDA-
2017-N-0901. An application will be placed in the docket and, unless
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit an application with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission.
You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note
that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will review this copy, including
the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of your
application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential
information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing
and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the
Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact
information to be made publicly available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your application
and you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this
document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to
the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan R. Sabel, Office of Scientific
Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 1, Rm. 4206, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 9, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Vermont, Meunerie Sawyerville pled guilty to two felony counts related
to the importation of food into the United States. Both offenses
occurred from on or about September 12, 2012, to on or about January
15, 2013. With respect to Count One, Meunerie Sawyerville admitted to
knowingly and intentionally making and using a false writing that
contained a materially fictitious statement in a matter within the
jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States government in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3) ``by submitting a false Automated
Commercial Environment Manifest listing a fictitious importer, namely,
Ted Taft, and presenting such documents to Customs and Border
Protection [Customs] officials . . . knowing and believing that Ted
Taft was not the true importer of the goods'' described in the
manifest. With respect to Count Two, Meunerie Sawyerville admitted to
causing the introduction of an adulterated drug (i.e., cattle feed
containing monensin) into interstate commerce with the intent to
defraud and mislead in violation of sections 301(a), 303(a)(2), and
501(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a), 333(a)(2), and 351(a)(6)).
Under section 501(a)(6), a drug is adulterated if it is an animal feed
bearing or containing a new animal drug that is unsafe within the
meaning of the FD&C Act.
    Under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
335a(b)(1)(C)), FDA is authorized to debar Meunerie Sawyerville from
importing articles of food or offering food for import into the United
States based on a finding, under section 306(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act,
that Meunerie Sawyerville was convicted of a felony for conduct
relating to the importation of food into the United States. By letter
dated July 21, 2017, the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) notified
Meunerie Sawyerville of a proposal to debar it for 5 years from
importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into
the United States and provided an opportunity for Meunerie Sawyerville
to request a hearing. In proposing a debarment period, ORA weighed the
considerations in section 306(c)(3) it considered applicable to
Meunerie Sawyerville's offenses, concluded that each of these felony
offenses independently warranted a 5-year period of debarment, and
proposed that these debarment periods be served concurrently under
section 306(c)(2)(A). By letter dated August 14, 2017, Meunerie
Sawyerville requested a hearing on the proposal.
    The Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) has
reviewed Meunerie Sawyerville's request for a hearing, as well as the
materials offered in support, and finds that Meunerie Sawyerville has
not established a basis for a hearing because hearings will be granted
only if there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact for resolution
at a hearing. Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law,
on mere allegations, denials, or general descriptions of positions and
contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the
factual determination urged (see 21 CFR 12.24(b)). OSI has considered
Meunerie Sawyerville's arguments and concludes that they are
unpersuasive and fail to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact
requiring a hearing.

II. Arguments

    Meunerie Sawyerville does not dispute that it is subject to
debarment under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act because it
committed two felony offenses related to the importation of food. Nor
does Meunerie Sawyerville dispute any of ORA's factual findings
contained in the proposal to debar. Further, Meunerie Sawyerville does
not dispute ORA's conclusion based on these findings that both the
nature and seriousness of the offenses and the nature and extent of
Meunerie Sawyerville management's participation in the offenses are
both considerations favoring debarment.
    Against this backdrop, Meunerie Sawyerville argues only: (1) That
ORA failed to consider as an applicable factor, under section
306(c)(3)(D) of the FD&C Act, the operational changes Meunerie
Sawyerville contends it has made that would prevent it from shipping
adulterated animal feed again in the future, specifically,
discontinuing the use of monensin in its animal feed, (2) that
voluntary mitigation of the offenses should not count as an unfavorable
consideration under section 306(c)(3)(C) because Meunerie Sawyerville
pled guilty and no specific harm occurred that Meunerie Sawyerville
could mitigate, and (3) that debarment is not an appropriate remedy
when customers are not defrauded and when debarment would hurt Meunerie
Sawyerville's business.
    Section 306(c)(3) requires FDA to consider, ``where applicable,''
certain factors ``[i]n determining the appropriateness and the period
of debarment'' for debarment under section 306(b)(3) of the FD&C Act.
The proposal to debar Meunerie Sawyerville set forth five potentially
applicable considerations for debarment actions related to food
importation imposed under section 306(b)(1)(C): (1) The nature and
seriousness of the offense under section 306(c)(3)(A); (2) the nature
and extent of management participation in the offense under section
306(c)(3)(B); (3) the nature and extent of voluntary steps taken to
mitigate the impact on the public under section 306(c)(3)(C); (4) the
extent that ownership, management, or operations changes have corrected
the causes of the offense and provide reasonable assurances that the
offense will not recur under 306(c)(3)(D); and (5) prior convictions
involving matters within the jurisdiction of FDA under section
306(c)(3)(F). In its proposal, ORA found that the first three
considerations weigh in favor of debarring Meunerie Sawyerville and
noted that the fifth consideration weighs against debarment because the
Agency was unaware of any prior convictions involving matters within
the jurisdiction of FDA. ORA

found the fourth consideration inapplicable.
    Meunerie Sawyerville's now represents that it no longer ships
animal feed containing monensin and argues that changes in its
operations should be counted as a consideration weighing against
debarment under section 306(c)(3)(D). Beyond removing monensin from its
production process, Meunerie Sawyerville points to no other changes in
ownership, management, or operations that would address the causes of
the offenses and provides no other reasonable assurance that the
criminal conduct underlying the offenses will not recur. As ORA's
proposal finds and Meunerie Sawyerville concedes, the same management
remains in charge at Meunerie Sawyerville, including president and
owner Yves Bolduc, who Meunerie Sawyerville admits devised and executed
the fraudulent scheme forming the basis for the offenses:

    [A]fter the medicated feed at issue was sampled at the border,
found to contain monensin at a concentration above that allowed by
FDA, and the driver was ordered to warehouse the feed pending
further testing from FDA, Mr. Bolduc instructed the driver to
deliver the feed to a Vermont farmer as planned, without informing
the farmer that the feed had been sampled and ordered held by FDA.
Mr. Bolduc then engineered a plan that a sham shipment of similar-
looking cattle feed cross the border under false Customs
documentation to be stored on an unrelated piece of land in Vermont
until requested for redelivery by Customs and Border Protection.
Upon request by Customs and Border Protection, Mr. Bolduc ordered
that the sham shipment be presented for redelivery, accompanied by
the fictitious documentation, offering up the sham shipment feed to
the U.S. government as the held tainted feed.

    Meunerie Sawyerville has admitted to knowingly and intentionally
orchestrating this presentation of false documents to Customs as part
of a larger scheme to defraud government regulators about the nature of
a shipment offered for import and to introducing adulterated product
into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead.
Meunerie Sawyerville does not dispute this conduct.
    Meunerie Sawyerville also argues in its hearing request that the
majority of its business going forward, if Meunerie Sawyerville is not
debarred, would involve offering animal feed for import into the United
States from Canada, necessarily requiring Meunerie Sawyerville to
provide Customs with an ongoing stream of information about its
products in the future. As an FDA-regulated product, animal feed can
become adulterated in numerous ways, not merely through the addition of
too much monensin (see, generally, section 402 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 342)). In addition to adulteration, there are also many other
reasons an unscrupulous importer might attempt to deceive Customs. Any
regular importer of food will be required to submit import documents to
Customs repeatedly that detail the nature, value, quantity, and
condition of product offered for import. As a result, simply removing
monensin from Meunerie Sawyerville's process does not sufficiently
address the causes of the offenses and provides little assurance that
Meunerie Sawyerville would handle future food import matters without
resorting to the knowing and intentional deception of government
regulators and the introduction of adulterated product that forms the
basis of these offenses. Therefore, even assuming as true that Meunerie
Sawyerville has stopped adding monensin to its animal feed, Meunerie
Sawyerville has not sufficiently corrected the causes that resulted in
the offenses and has not provided reasonable assurances that these
offenses will not recur. As a result, the Director of OSI finds that
the consideration in section 306(C)(3)(D) should not be considered as
weighing against debarment for these offenses.
    Next, Meunerie Sawyerville argues that the nature and extent of
steps taken to mitigate the impact of its offenses on the public under
section 306(c)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act should be a consideration weighing
against debarment. Meunerie Sawyerville argues that there was no
evidence that specific members of the public were harmed such that
mitigation of that harm was possible and that it pled guilty as the
only possible mitigation step. OSI disagrees that Meunerie
Sawyerville's actions suggest significant voluntary mitigation of the
harm related to the offenses at issue. Although the government exposed
Meunerie Sawyerville's offenses in progress and thereby prevented harm
to any specific victims for the offenses at issue, other voluntary
mitigation efforts were available to Meunerie Sawyerville beyond simply
pleading guilty when apprehended. Indeed, with respect to voluntary
mitigation for the offense in Count Two, Meunerie Sawyerville devised
the fraudulent scheme underlying the offense in Count One to compound,
rather than mitigate, its earlier criminal conduct of shipping an
adulterated product to its customer in Vermont. Rather than admitting
the earlier misconduct to Customs and FDA to mitigate any harm from its
earlier tainted shipment and avoid continuing to undermine the
government's ability to regulate imports, Meunerie Sawyerville engaged
in additional criminal conduct and devised the sham shipment and
fictitious documents that formed the basis for the offense in Count
One. Further, with respect to Count One itself, because this offense
was devised to conceal other criminal conduct, the primary opportunity
to mitigate the associated harm to the government's regulatory
authority occurred throughout Meunerie Sawyerville's efforts to devise
and execute the scheme described in Count One. Rather than take steps
to mitigate the harm from the earlier criminal offense, Meunerie
Sawyerville chose to take affirmative steps to compound that harm. In
this context, Meunerie Sawyerville deserves no credit for a guilty plea
when its scheme was uncovered. Therefore, considering the facts and the
context of these offenses, the Director of OSI finds that the extent of
voluntary efforts to mitigate the impact of these offenses should not
be considered in favor of Meunerie Sawyerville under section
306(c)(3)(C).
    Lastly, Meunerie Sawyerville argues that debarment is inappropriate
as a matter of policy because it would harm Meunerie Sawyerville's
business and force its customers to consider other suppliers for their
animal feed. As already noted, a hearing will not be granted on issues
of policy such as these (see 21 CFR 12.24(b)). Also, the considerations
Meunerie Sawyerville raises, such as the impact of debarment on
Meunerie Sawyerville's business, are not appropriate considerations
under section 306(c)(3) for determining the length of a period of
debarment. Finally, the remedial purpose of the debarment statute is
designed to accomplish exactly the result to which Meunerie Sawyerville
objects by protecting the public from food from importers whose
criminal conduct demonstrates, based on the applicable considerations,
that they warrant debarment. As such, these arguments do not support
Meunerie Sawyerville's request for a hearing on this matter.

III. Findings and Order

    Because OSI has assumed as true that Meunerie Sawyerville has
discontinued using monensin in its process and Meunerie Sawyerville
raises no other arguments that would present genuine and substantial
issues of fact that would require resolution at an evidentiary hearing,
Meunerie Sawyerville's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied.

    Considering all applicable factors under 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act,
OSI concurs with ORA's proposal that a 5-year period of debarment for
each offense is warranted. On this record, OSI finds that the nature
and seriousness of the offenses and the nature and extent of Meunerie
Sawyerville management's participation in the offenses are factors
weighing heavily in favor of debarment. For the reasons already
discussed, even assuming Meunerie Sawyerville has discontinued using
monensin in its operations, OSI finds that operational change
insufficient under section 306(c)(3)(D) to demonstrate correction of
the causes of these offenses and to provide reasonable assurances that
the offenses will not recur. Further, even after taking into account
Meunerie Sawyerville's guilty plea under section 306(c)(3)(C), OSI
finds that Meunerie Sawyerville's conduct related to this consideration
weighs in favor of debarment. Although Meunerie Sawyerville's lack of a
prior conviction under 306(c)(3)(F) is a factor weighing against
debarment, this consideration is substantially outweighed by the nature
and seriousness of the offenses, the nature and extent of management's
participation in the offenses, and the nature and extent of voluntary
steps to mitigate the impact of the offenses on the public. Therefore,
considering all of these factors together and the record as a whole,
OSI finds that a 5-year period of debarment is warranted for each
offense.
    Therefore, the Director of OSI, under section 306(b)(3)(A) of the
FD&C Act and under authority delegated to him by the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, finds that Meunerie Sawyerville has been convicted of a
felony for conduct relating to the importation of food into the United
States. FDA has considered the relevant factors listed in section
306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act and determined that a debarment of 5 years is
appropriate for each of these felony offenses. These periods will run
concurrently under section 306(c)(2)(A). As a result of the foregoing
findings, Meunerie Sawyerville is debarred for a period of 5 years from
importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into
the United States, applicable (see DATES). Under section 301(cc) of the
FD&C Act, the importing or offering for import into the United States
of an article of food by, with the assistance of, or at the direction
of Meunerie Sawyerville is a prohibited act.

    Dated: February 26, 2018.
George M. Warren,
Director, Office of Scientific Integrity.
[FR Doc. 2018-04195 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59296-59297]
[DOCID:fr17no09-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60978; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-068]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the $1
Strike Program To Allow Low-Strike LEAPS

November 10, 2009.
    On September 16, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend CBOE's $1 Strike
Program. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 7, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60749 (September 30,
2009), 74 FR 51632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LEAPS are long-term equity options that expire from 12 to 39 months
from the time they are listed.\4\ The proposed rule change expands the
Exchange's $1 Strike Program (``Program'') to permit the exchange to
list LEAPS with low strike prices \5\ and at $1 strike price intervals.
Specifically, the Exchange will be able to list LEAPS series having
strike prices of $1, $2, $3, $4, and $5 in up to 200 option classes on
individual securities that are in the Exchange's Program or another
exchange's Program.\6\ CBOE believes that deep out-of-the-money put
options that could be listed under this proposal are functionally
similar to credit default swaps and could be a viable, liquid
alternative to OTC-traded credit default swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBOE Rule 5.8.
    \5\ CBOE, along with the other options exchanges, recently
amended the Options Listing Procedures Plan (``OLPP'') to adopt
objective, exercise price range limitations applicable to options on
individual equity securities, ETFs, and trust-issued receipts. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60531 (August 19, 2009), 74 FR
43173 (August 26, 2009) (approving Amendment No. 3 to the OLPP). The
exercise price range limitations of paragraph (3)(g) of the OLPP
state that the exercise price of each newly listed option on an
equity security, ETF, or trust-issued receipt shall be fixed at a
price per unit that is reasonably close to the price of the
underlying security at or about the time of the series listing.
Under paragraph (3)(g)(i), if the price of the underlying security
is less than or equal to $20, the exchange shall not list new option
series with an exercise price more than 100% above or below the
price of the underlying security; and if the price of the underlying
security is greater than $20, the exchange shall not list new option
series with an exercise price more than 50% above or below the price
of the underlying security. However, paragraph (3)(g)(ii) of the
OLPP states that these exercise price range limitations do not apply
with regard to, among others, option classes participating in the
Program. Therefore, LEAPS series listed under this proposal would
not be subject to the exercise price range limitations contained in
paragraph (3)(g).
    \6\ However, if the Exchange already has listed a LEAPS series
with a $2.50 strike price, it would be permitted under this proposal
to list additional series with strike prices of $1, $4, and $5, but
not series with strike prices of $2 or $3. See CBOE Rule 5.5,
Interpretation .01(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The margin requirements set forth in Chapter XII of the Exchange's
rules and the position and exercise requirements set forth in CBOE
Rules 4.11 and 4.12 will apply to these new series, and no changes to
those requirements were proposed.
    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\7\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission believes that the low-strike LEAPS
contemplated in this proposal will provide investors with a potentially
useful investment choice. The proposal will extend to these options the
benefits of a listed exchange market, which

include a centralized forum for price discovery, pre- and post-trade
transparency, standardized contract specifications, and the guarantee
of the Options Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal strikes a reasonable
balance between the Exchange's desire to offer a wider array of
products with the need to avoid unnecessary proliferation of options
series and the corresponding increase in quotes. In approving the
proposed rule change, the Commission has relied on the Exchange's
representation that it has the necessary systems capacity to support
the new options series that will be listed under this proposal. This
approval order is conditioned on CBOE's adherence to this
representation. The Commission expects the Exchange to continue to
monitor for options with little or no open interest and trading
activity and to act promptly to delist such options. In addition, the
Commission expects that CBOE will monitor the trading volume associated
with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal
and the effect of these additional series on market fragmentation and
on the capacity of the Exchange's, the Options Price Reporting
Authority's, and vendors' automated systems.

Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-068), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27504 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		November 13, 2014

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	EPA Region 1

SUBJECT:	November 13, 2014, Meeting with Massachusetts State Staff Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on November 13, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. Discussion covered the energy efficiency calculations and integration of load growth over time.

ATTENDEES (all by phone):
Massachusetts:
Seth Federspiel
Alissa Whiteman

EPA:
Shutsu Wong
Cynthia Greene
John Moskal
Bob McConnell
Joe Bryson
Beth Conlin

Questions from the state are attached.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28433-28434]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0121; FMCSA-2014-0103; FMCSA-2014-0105; FMCSA-
2014-0106; FMCSA-2014-0107; FMCSA-2014-0385; FMCSA-2015-0327; FMCSA-
2015-0329; FMCSA-2016-0002; FMCSA-2018-0137]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 15
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on April 21, 2021. The exemptions
expire on April 21, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2013-0121, FMCSA-2014-0103, FMCSA-2014-0105, FMCSA-2014-
0106, FMCSA-2014-0107, FMCSA-2014-0385, FMCSA-2015-0327, FMCSA-2015-
0329, FMCSA-2016-0002, or FMCSA-2018-0137 in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not
have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone
is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 6, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision
to renew exemptions for 15 individuals from the hearing standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested
comments from the public (86 FR 17882). The public comment period ended
on May 6, 2021, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 15 renewal exemption applications,
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the
hearing requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    As of April 21, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following 15 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (86 FR 17882):

Maurice N. Abenchuchan (FL)
Ron Adkins (MO)
Prince K. Bempong (TX)
Keith Byrd (TN)
Perry Cobb (TN)
Kevin Dent (MS)
Nathaniel Godfrey (KY)
Daniel Grossinger (MD)
Dwayne Johnson (IL)
Paul Langlois (OH)
Reynaldo Martinez (TX)
Floyd McClain (OH)
Brian Peek (GA)
Lon E. Smith (MS)
John Turner, III (CO)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0121, FMCSA-
2014-0103, FMCSA-2014-0105, FMCSA-2014-0106, FMCSA-2014-0107, FMCSA-
2014-0385, FMCSA-2015-0327, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2016-0002, or FMCSA-
2018-0137. Their exemptions were applicable as of April 21, 2021, and
will expire on April 21, 2023.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11110 Filed 5-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39972-39973]
[DOCID:fr11jy08-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Request for Nominations for Voting Members on Public Advisory
Committee, Food Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
nominations for voting members to serve on the Food Advisory Committee
(FAC), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN).
    FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups,
and individuals with disabilities are adequately represented on
advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of qualified
candidates from these groups.

DATES: Nominations received on or before August 11, 2008 will be given
first consideration for membership on the Food Advisory Committee.
Nominations received after August 11, 2008 will be considered for
nomination to the committee should nominees still be needed.

ADDRESSES: All Nominations for membership should be sent electronically
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: Advisory Committee Oversight and
Management Staff, 5600 Fisher Lane (HF-4), rm. 15A-12, Rockville, MD
20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding all nomination questions for
membership, the primary contact is Carolyn Jeletic, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information about becoming a member on an
FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site
by using the following link: http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nomination for voting
members on the Food Advisory Committee.

I. Function of the Food Advisory Committee

    The committee provides advice, primarily to the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs and other appropriate officials, on emerging food
safety, food science, nutrition, and other food-related health issues
that the FDA considers of primary importance for its food and cosmetics
programs. The committee may be charged with reviewing and evaluating
available data and making recommendations on matters such as those
relating to: (1) Broad scientific and technical food or cosmetic
related issues, (2) the safety of new foods and food ingredients, (3)
labeling of foods and cosmetics, (4) nutrient needs and nutritional
adequacy, and (5) safe exposure limits for food contaminants. The
committee may also be asked to provide advice and make recommendations
on ways of communicating to the public the potential risks associated
with these issues and on approaches that might be considered for
addressing the issues.

II. Criteria for Voting Members

    FDA is requesting nominations of voting members with appropriate
expertise in the following specialties: Microbiology, food technology,
and nutrition.

III. Nomination Procedures

    Pursuant to 21 CFR 14.84(d), any interested person may nominate one
or more qualified persons for membership on the advisory committee.
Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations shall include the name
of the committee, a complete curriculum vitae of each nominee, and
their current business address and telephone number and e-mail address
if available. Each nomination shall state that the nominee is aware of
the nomination, is willing to serve as a member, and appears to have no
conflict of interest that would preclude membership. FDA will ask the
potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such
matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or
contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of
interest.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.2) and 21 CFR part 14 relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: July 3, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-15839 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35935]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15396]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of: BP International, Inc., CyGene Laboratories,
Inc., Delek Resources, Inc., Flooring America, Inc., International
Diversified Industries, Inc., Nova Biogenetics, Inc., and Tube Media
Corp. (The); Order of Suspension of Trading

 June 16, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
BP International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended February 28, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
CyGene Laboratories, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Delek Resources, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Flooring America, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended February 5, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
International Diversified Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Nova Biogenetics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Tube Media Corp. (The) because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2006.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. E.D.T. on June 16, 2011, and terminating
at 11:59 p.m. E.D.T. on June 29, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15396 Filed 6-16-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34365-34366]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-929-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Hardy Storage Company LLC Annual Penalty Revenue
Crediting Report.
    Filed Date: 5/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130529-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-930-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Change to RP13-743-001 to be effective 5/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130529-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-931-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: June 1--30 2013 Auction to be effective 6/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130529-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-932-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Neg Rate Filing--Sequent Energy to be effective 6/1/
2013.
    Filed Date: 5/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130529-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-933-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Filing--Renaissance Trading to be
effective 6/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130529-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-934-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Tenaska LPS-RO to be effective 6/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130529-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 30, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13588 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36481-36484]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0521; FRL-8686-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Virginia Major New Source Review, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing limited approval of a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This
revision pertains to amendments to Virginia's existing new source
review permit program for owners of sources located or locating in
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) areas which were
submitted to EPA on October 10, 2006. EPA is proposing limited approval
of these changes to the PSD program, because while the SIP revision
submitted by the Commonwealth strengthens the SIP, it does not fully
meet the current Federal requirements for the allowable lookback period
under the definition of ``baseline actual emissions''. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). In a separate
action, EPA will address changes made by Virginia to its nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) permit program, submitted on February 12,
2007.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0521 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0521, David Campbell, Chief, Permits and
Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0521. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon McCauley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 10, 2006, the Commonwealth of
Virginia submitted a revision to its SIP for approval of amendments to
Virginia's existing New Source Review permit program for owners of
sources locating in PSD areas.

I. Background

    On December 31, 2002, the U.S. EPA published revisions to the
Federal PSD and NNSR regulations (67 FR 80186), effective March 3,
2003. These changes to the Federal NSR regulations were reconsidered
with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021) and collectively,
these two final actions are called the ``2002 New Source Review (NSR)
Reform Rules''.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for
determining the baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-
projected actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply
with plant-wide applicability limits to avoid having a significant
emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR
program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for emissions units
that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude pollution control
projects (PCPs) from the definition of ``physical change or change in
the method of operation.'' The November 7,

2003 notice of final action added a definition for ``replacement unit''
and clarified an issue regarding the Plant-wide Applicability
Limitation (PALs) baseline calculation procedures for newly constructed
units.
    On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit ruled in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC
Cir. June 24, 2005) that EPA lacked the authority to promulgate the
Clean Unit provisions, and the Court requested that EPA vacate that
portion of the 2002 Federal regulation, codified at 40 CFR 52.21(x), as
contrary to the statute. Also, the Court determined that EPA lacked the
authority to create PCP exceptions from NSR and vacated those parts of
the 1991 and 2002 rules, codified at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(32) and 52.21(z),
as contrary to the statute.
    As stated in the December 31, 2002 ``NSR Reform'' rulemaking, State
and local permitting agencies were required to adopt and submit
revisions to their part 51 permitting programs, implementing the
minimum program elements of that rulemaking no later then January 2,
2006 (67 FR 80240). With this submittal, Virginia requests approval of
program revisions to satisfy this requirement. In addition, Virginia
has updated their stationary source permit regulations in Chapter 50,
Article 4, to conform to the new NSR regulatory program and translated
the Federal NSR requirements into their regulatory text in Chapter 80,
Article 8 in a manner that is consistent with State regulatory
development procedures.
    On October 13, 2006, EPA Region III received a revision request to
the Virginia SIP from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ). The October 13, 2006, 2006 SIP revision request consisted of
changes to Legislative Rule 9 VAC 5 Chapter 50 Article 4--Stationary
Sources, 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80 Article 6--Permits for New and Modified
Stationary Sources, and 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80 Article 8--Permits for
Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air
Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration. These rules
were adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia State Air Pollution
Control Board on June 21, 2006 and became effective September 1, 2006.
The Commonwealth adopted the regulations in order to meet the relevant
plan requirements of 40 CFR 51.166.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

What is being addressed in this document?

    Virginia currently has an EPA-approved NSR program for new and
modified sources. Today, EPA is proposing limited approval of the
Virginia pre-construction permitting program as submitted on October
10, 2006 for sources located or locating in PSD areas. The submittal
consists of rules titled ``Chapter 50, Article 4--Stationary Sources''
and ``Chapter 80, Article 8--Permits for Construction and Major
Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)'' adopted June 21, 2006
and effective September 1, 2006. Virginia also submitted changes to 9
VAC Chapter 80 Article 6--Permits for New and Modified Stationary
Sources as part of the SIP revision, however, Article 6 has not
previously been approved as part of the Virginia SIP and EPA will not
be taking any rulemaking action on this portion of the SIP submittal at
this time. This limited approval action will revise the previously-
approved versions of these rules as approved into the Virginia SIP on
April 21, 2000 (65 FR 21315) and March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13795).
    Copies of the revised Virginia rules, as well as the Technical
Support Document (TSD), can be obtained from the Docket as discussed in
the ``Docket'' Section above. A discussion of the notable Virginia rule
changes that are proposed for inclusion into the SIP are included in
the TSD and summarized below.

What are the program changes that EPA is proposing limited approval?

    In its December 2002 regulatory action, EPA dramatically changed
many aspects of the regulations governing the PSD and nonattainment NSR
programs (together, as ``NSR''), aimed at providing much needed
flexibility and regulatory certainty, and at removing barriers and
creating incentives for sources to improve environmental performance
through emissions reductions, pollution prevention, and improved energy
efficiency.'' Virginia accepted the conceptual framework of EPA's NSR
reform revisions but tailored the program to their State-specific
objectives. EPA agrees that Virginia's regulations, while different in
some limited respects, will not prevent companies from benefiting from
most, if not all of the goals of NSR reform. In general, EPA has
concluded that Virginia's regulations, overall, conform to the minimum
program elements in 40 CFR 51.166 despite some variations in their
rules from the federal program. These notable variations are described
below and the explanation of EPA's proposed limited approval is
described in Section III of this notice.
Notable Variations in Article 8 From the Federal Program
    1. In the EPA regulations, the period used for establishing the
baseline for each pollutant can be different for each pollutant. The
Virginia regulations require that it be the same for all pollutants,
except where extenuating circumstances would allow use of different
baseline periods. This variation is acceptable to EPA.
    2. The EPA regulations do not specify consequences where the owner
determines there is a reasonable possibility that a project that is not
a part of a major modification may result in a significant emissions
increase and does not obtain a permit. The Virginia regulations specify
how the state will act should the owner fail to make an accurate
determination. EPA believes that this variation from the Federal rule
has no impact on approvability or the Commonwealth's ability to achieve
the goals of NSR reform and is acceptable to EPA.
    Please note, the Commonwealth will soon be revising this Section of
its regulations to reflect changes made in the EPA final rule dated
December 14, 2007 providing improvements to EPA's New Source Review
program regarding ``reasonable possibility'' in recordkeeping. EPA's
final rule provided an explanation and more detailed criteria to
clarify the ``reasonable possibility'' recordkeeping and reporting
standard of the 2002 New Source Review Reform rule. The improvements
provided in the December 14, 2007 rulemaking were to reflect the
amendments found necessary to respond to the decision of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir.
2005) (New York) which remanded this portion of the December 2002
regulations for EPA to provide an acceptable explanation for its
``reasonable possibility'' standard or to devise an appropriately
supported alternative.
    3. The EPA regulations exclude emission increases that could be
accommodated and are unrelated to the project, including demand growth,
from projected actual emissions. The Virginia regulations included this
exclusion but have been revised in order to clarify the intent of the
provision and ensure consistency in its application. This variation is
acceptable to EPA.

    4. The EPA regulations require owners to develop and maintain
information to support their determination that a given project is not
a part of a major modification that may result in a significant
emissions increase. The Virginia regulations require advance
notification of the availability of the information prior to beginning
actual construction of the project. This variation is acceptable to
EPA.
    5. The EPA regulations establish Plantwide Applicability Limits
(PALs) with a duration of 10 years; the Virginia regulations contain
five-year durations for PALs. This variation is acceptable to EPA.
    6. This SIP revision also includes other non-substantive changes to
Virginia's PSD program. There was a need to update regulatory
citations, making consistency revisions to the text to bring the
regulations in the Commonwealth up to date. EPA's analysis has found
that these non-substantative changes do not change any of the minimum
regulatory requirements and are acceptable.
    For an in-depth and full explanation of EPA's regulatory analysis
of the Virginia PSD program, please review the TSD located in the
Docket. EPA's position is that every element of NSR reform is present
in Virginia's rules but some elements may be implemented in a way that
allows the Commonwealth more scrutiny with respect to how NSR applies
to a facility.

III. Limited Approval

Why is EPA proposing ``limited approval'' versus ``full approval'' of
Virginia's NSR Reform regulations for PSD areas?

    The Clean Air Act does not expressly provide for limited approvals,
therefore EPA is using its gap-filling authority under section 301 (a)
of the Act in conjunction with the section 110(k)(3) approval provision
to interpret the Act to provide for this type of limited approval
action. A key aspect of these limited approval actions is that they
encompass the entire rule based on the fact that even with limitations,
the approval of the entire rule will strengthen the Commonwealth's SIP.
The primary advantage to using this limited approval is that it will
make the Commonwealth's revision submittal Federally enforceable and
will increase the SIP's potential to achieve additional reductions.
    The following is an explanation for the limited approval of this
SIP revision by EPA. In Virginia's regulations under 9 VAC 5-80-1615 a
new definition was added to reflect the necessary changes to the
program found in the 2002 Federal NSR Reform rule.
    Virginia's definition for ``baseline actual emissions'' varies from
the Federal definition at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(47) in two ways. First, for
both electric generating units (EGUs) and non-EGUs, Virginia's rule
allows the use of different baselines for different pollutants if the
owner can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State Air Pollution
Control Board (Board) that a different baseline period for a different
pollutant(s) is more appropriate due to extenuating circumstances. This
is acceptable to EPA. However in the second instance, for non-EGUs, the
24-month baseline period must occur within the five-year period
preceding the date the owner begins actual construction or the permit
application is deemed complete, whichever is earlier, unless the Board
allows a different time period that it deems is more representative of
normal source operations. The allowance of a different or an extended
time period by the Board is acceptable as it allows a time period past
the more limiting 5-year period; however, the Commonwealth's
regulations do not further restrict the Board from allowing a time
period which could extend past the 10-year period currently provided in
the federal NSR Reform rule.
    The Virginia regulations, therefore, meet the general federal
criteria for expanding the lookback period beyond the old requirement
of the most recent 24-month period, and are thus equivalent to the
federal requirement. The purpose of an extended lookback is to
establish a period that is most representative of source operation.
Establishment of the most representative operation not only enables
sources to plan effective emissions control strategies, it also
provides Virginia with more accurate information on which to base long-
term air quality planning strategies. The 5-year lookback period can be
seen to be more limiting or at times more restrictive than the Federal
rule. Requiring a 5-year lookback instead of a 10-year lookback may,
however, limit a source's potential to find a higher baseline. This
could in turn restrict a source's ability to emit and is thus
inherently more protective than the EPA regulations. As part of the
October 10, 2006 SIP revision submittal, the Commonwealth provided a
more detailed explanation of the 5-year lookback period.
    Though it was not Virginia's intention to exceed the 10-year
lookback period limitation, EPA's decision to propose limited approval
is based on the Commonwealth's interpretation of its own regulations as
provided in their Technical Support Document. EPA is relying on this
interpretation of the regulations as noted above and in part, the basis
for our limited approval. Furthermore, EPA would look unfavorably upon
any use of discretion by Virginia that would allow for baselines that
exceed a 10-year lookback period. EPA expects Virginia to correct the
definition at 9 VAC 5-80-1615 by limiting the discretionary lookback
period to 10 years. When Virginia makes this amendment, they will be
eligible for consideration for full approval of its PSD program found
in Article 8.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law'', including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or

approval, since Virginia must ``enforce Federally authorized
environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their
Federal counterparts ``* * *.'' The opinion concludes that
``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged because such documents and information
are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal
law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
PSD program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event,
because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and
immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any
impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions
of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In
addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is
likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity
law.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA has determined that the amendments to Virginia's PSD permit
program at Articles 4 and 8, as submitted on October 10, 2006 meet the
minimum requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 and the Clean Air Act. This
amendment is being proposed as a limited approval to the Virginia SIP.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule for limited approval of the
Virginia Major New Source review Reform for facilities located or
locating in PSD areas does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 17, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E8-14617 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P