[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42134-42135]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0586]

Application for Recertification of Cook Inlet Regional Citizens'
Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of, and seeks
comments on, the application for recertification submitted by the Cook
Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (CIRCAC) for September 1,
2011, through August 31, 2012. Under the Oil Terminal and Tanker
Environmental Oversight Act of 1990, the Coast Guard may certify on an
annual basis, an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a
Regional Citizens' Advisory Council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This
advisory group monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude
oil tankers under the Cook Inlet program established by the statute.
The current certification for CIRCAC will expire August 31, 2011.

DATES: Public comments on CIRCAC's recertification application must
reach the Seventeenth Coast Guard District on or before September 1,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0586 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
recertification, call or e-mail LCDR Mike Franklin, Seventeenth Coast
Guard District (dpi); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this application for
recertification by submitting comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice of availability (USCG-2011-0586), indicate the specific section
of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason
for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0586'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may
withhold recertification or grant a conditional recertification based
on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0586'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may
submit a request for one on or before August 1st, 2011 using one of the
four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe
a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would
aid the process of thoroughly considering the application for
recertification, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard published guidelines on December 31, 1992 (57 FR
62600), to assist groups seeking recertification under the Oil Terminal
and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2732) (the Act). The Coast Guard issued a policy statement on
July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36504), to clarify the factors that the Coast Guard
would be considering in making its determination as to whether advisory
groups should be certified in accordance with the Act; and the
procedures which the Coast Guard would follow in meeting its
certification responsibilities under the Act. Most recently, on
September 16, 2002 (67 FR 58440), the Coast Guard changed its

policy on recertification procedures for regional citizen's advisory
council by requiring applicants to provide comprehensive information
every three years. For the two years in between, applicants only submit
information describing substantive changes to the information provided
at the last triennial recertification. This is the year in this
triennial cycle that CIRCAC must provide comprehensive information.
    At the conclusion of the comment period, September 1, 2011, the
Coast Guard will review all application materials and comments received
and will take one of the following actions:
    (a) Recertify the advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o).
    (b) Issue a conditional recertification for a period of 90 days,
with a statement of any discrepancies, which must be corrected to
qualify for recertification for the remainder of the year.
    (c) Deny recertification of the advisory group if the Coast Guard
finds that the group is not broadly representative of the interests and
communities in the area or is not adequately fostering the goals and
purposes of 33 U.S.C. 2732.
    The Coast Guard will notify CIRCAC by letter of the action taken on
their respective applications. A notice will be published in the
Federal Register to advise the public of the Coast Guard's
determination.

    Dated: June 24, 2011.
T.P. Ostebo,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-17981 Filed 7-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10710-10712]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1041; Special Conditions No. 25-805-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X Airplane;
Side Stick Controllers--Controllability and Maneuverability.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation
(Dassault) Model Falcon 6X airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes. This design feature is side-stick controllers for pitch and
roll control. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault on February 25, 2022. Send
comments on or before April 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2020-1041 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35, the
FAA will post all comments received without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about these special conditions.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to these special
conditions contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, it is
important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI.
Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.''
The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the
FOIA, and the indicated comments will not be placed in the public
docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to
the Information Contact below. Comments the FAA receives, which are not
specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy Brown, Performance and
Environment Section, AIR-625, Technical Innovation Policy Branch,
Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1801 S. Airport Rd., Wichita, KS 67209-2190;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in
several prior instances with no substantive comments received.
Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to Sec.  11.38(b), that new comments
are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On July 1, 2012, Dassault applied for a type certificate for its
new Model Falcon 5X airplane. However, Dassault has decided not to
release an airplane under the model designation Falcon 5X, instead
choosing to change that model designation to Falcon 6X.
    In February of 2018, due to engine supplier issues, Dassault
extended the type certificate application date for its Model Falcon 5X
airplane under new Model Falcon 6X. This airplane is a twin-engine
business jet with seating for 19 passengers, and has a maximum takeoff
weight of 77,460 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault must show that the
Model Falcon 6X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as
amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-146.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    Side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control.

Discussion

    Current part 25 airworthiness regulations account for conventional
wheel-and-column airplane controls. Regulatory requirements pertaining
to conventional wheel-and-column controls, such as pilot strength and
controllability, are not directly applicable to side-stick controls. In
addition, pilot-control authority may be uncertain because the side
sticks are not mechanically interconnected to controlled surfaces, as
are conventional wheel and column controls.
    Current FAA regulations do not specifically address the use of
side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control. The unique features
of the side stick must therefore be demonstrated through flight and
simulator tests to have suitable handling and control characteristics
when considering the following:
    1. The handling-qualities tasks and requirements of the Dassault
Falcon Model 6X airplane Special Conditions and other 14 CFR part 25
requirements for stability, control, and maneuverability, including the
effects of turbulence.
    2. General ergonomics: Armrest comfort and support, local freedom
of movement, displacement angle suitability, and axis harmony.
    3. Inadvertent input in turbulence.
    4. Inadvertent pitch-roll crosstalk.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one

model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X
airplane.
    1. Pilot strength: In lieu of the control force limits shown in
Sec.  25.143(d) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of specific pitch force
requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b), 25.173(c),
25.175(b), and 25.175(d), it must be shown that the temporary and
maximum prolonged force levels for the side stick controllers are
suitable for all expected operating conditions and configurations,
whether normal or non-normal.
    2. Pilot-control authority: The electronic side-stick-controller
coupling design must provide for corrective and/or overriding control
inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of
the controller status must be provided, and must not be confusing to
the flightcrew.
    3. Pilot control: It must be shown by flight tests that the use of
side-stick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-loop
control characteristics when considering precision path control/tasks
and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control force and
displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal inputs on
one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs on the
other.
    4. Autopilot quick-release control location: In lieu of compliance
with 25.1329(d), autopilot quick-release (emergency) controls must be
on both side-stick controllers. The quick-release means must be located
so that flight crew can readily and easily use the release mechanism.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 17, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-03866 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 8760-8761]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61534]

Order Granting Application for Exemption Pursuant to Section
36(a) of the Exchange Act by BATS Exchange, Inc. From the Rule Filing
Requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act With Respect to
Certain Rules Incorporated by Reference

February 18, 2010.
    BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS Exchange'') has filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an application for
an exemption under Section 36(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ from the rule filing requirements of
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act \2\ with respect to certain rules of
another self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') that BATS Exchange seeks
to incorporate by reference. Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes
the Commission to conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person,
security, or transaction, or any class thereof, from any provision of
the Exchange Act or

rule thereunder, if necessary or appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 26, 2010, the Commission approved new rules governing
the trading of options on the BATS Exchange Options Market (``Options
Rules'').\3\ Certain of the Options Rules incorporate by reference
existing rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''),
formerly known as the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD''),\4\ and NYSE. Thus, for certain Options Rules, BATS Exchange
members will comply with a BATS Exchange rule by complying with the
CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE rule referenced therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61419 (January 26,
2010), 75 FR 5157 (February 1, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-031).
    \4\ Although NASD is now known as FINRA, some rules in the FINRA
rule book are still referred to as ``NASD rules.'' FINRA is in the
process of consolidating the member rules of the New York Stock
Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') and NASD rules into a single rule book. For
purposes of the FINRA rule book, harmonized rules are referred to as
FINRA rules, while rules that originally were NASD rules, but have
yet to be harmonized, are referred to as NASD rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BATS Exchange has requested, pursuant to Rule 0-12 under the
Exchange Act,\5\ that the Commission grant it an exemption from the
rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act for
changes to the Options Rules that are effected solely by virtue of a
change to a cross-referenced CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE rule. Specifically,
BATS Exchange requests that it be permitted to incorporate by reference
changes made to each CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE rule (or series of rules)
that is cross-referenced in BATS Exchange Rules 2.12, 18.7, 18.9,
26.16, 28.3, 29.5, and 29.7 without the need for BATS Exchange to file
separately the same proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of
the Exchange Act.\6\ BATS Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference
(1) CBOE rules governing position and exercise limits for equity and
index options; (2) the margin rules of CBOE and the NYSE; (3) FINRA's
rules governing communications with the public; and (4) FINRA's rule
governing fidelity bonds, for members for which BATS Exchange is the
Designated Examining Authority. BATS Exchange represents that the rules
it has incorporated by reference into the Options Rules are categories
of CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE rules (rather than individual rules within a
category) that are not trading rules. The Exchange has agreed to
provide written notice to its members whenever CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE
proposes a change to a cross-referenced CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.0-12.
    \6\ See Letter from Eric Swanson, SVP, General Counsel, BATS
Exchange, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
January 20, 2010 (``BATS Exemptive Request'').
    \7\ Id. BATS Exchange states that it will provide this notice on
its Web site where it posts its own proposed rule change filings
within the same time frame required of its own filings pursuant to
Rule 19b-4(l), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(l). Id. at note 8. In addition, BATS
Exchange states that the posting will include a link to the location
on CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE's Web site where the proposed rule change is
posted. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has issued exemptions to other exchanges similar to
BATS Exchange's request.\8\ The Commission stated in 2004, when
granting one such exemption, that it would consider similar future
exemption requests from other SROs, provided that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, NYSE Amex LLC (formerly NYSE Alternext U.S.,
LLC), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, and NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.
(formerly the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.) incorporate the
FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure, while the ISE, NYSE Arca, Inc.,
and the Boston Options Exchange, a facility of NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
(formerly Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.), incorporate by reference the
margin rules of NYSE and CBOE. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 49260 (February 17, 2004), 69 FR 8500 (February 24, 2004). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73
FR 14521, 14539-40 (March 18, 2008) (order approving SR-NASDAQ-2007-
004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-080) and 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR
3550, 3565-66 (January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131) (approving The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC's exchange application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An SRO wishing to incorporate rules of another SRO by
reference has submitted a written request for an order exempting it
from the requirement in Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act to file
proposed rule changes relating to the rules incorporated by reference,
has identified the applicable originating SRO(s), together with the
rules it wants to incorporate by reference, and otherwise has complied
with the procedural requirements set forth in the Commission's release
governing procedures for requesting exemptive orders pursuant to Rule
0-12 under the Exchange Act; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 17 CFR 240.0-12 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
39624 (February 5, 1998), 63 FR 8101 (February 18, 1998) (Commission
Procedures for Filing Applications for Orders for Exemptive Relief
Pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act; Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An incorporating SRO has requested incorporation of
categories of rules (rather than individual rules within a category)
that are not trading rules (e.g., the SRO has requested incorporation
of rules such as margin, suitability, or arbitration); and
     The incorporating SRO has reasonable procedures in place
to provide written notice to its members each time a change is proposed
to the incorporated rules of another SRO.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49260, supra note
8.

The Commission believes that BATS Exchange has satisfied each of these
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conditions.

The Commission also believes that granting BATS Exchange an exemption
from the rule filing requirements under Section 19(b) of the Exchange
Act will promote efficient use of Commission and BATS Exchange
resources by avoiding duplicative rule filings based on simultaneous
changes to identical rule text sought by more than one SRO.\11\ The
Commission therefore finds that it is necessary and appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to
exempt BATS Exchange from the rule filing requirements under Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act with respect to the rules it has incorporated
by reference. This exemption is conditioned upon BATS Exchange
providing written notice to its members whenever CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE
proposes to change a rule that BATS Exchange has incorporated by
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id., 69 FR at 8502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act,\12\ that BATS Exchange is exempt from the rule filing requirements
of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act solely with respect to changes to
the rules identified in its request that incorporate by reference
certain rules of CBOE, FINRA, and NYSE,\13\ provided that BATS Exchange
provides written notice to its members whenever CBOE, FINRA, or NYSE
proposes to change a rule that BATS Exchange has incorporated by
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.
    \13\ See BATS Exemptive Request, supra note 6.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3772 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60142-60144]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25345]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW_2008-0719; FRL-9935-28-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Requests; Comment Requests

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit three information collection requests (ICRs): ``Information
Collection Request for Cooling Water Intake Structures New Facility
Final Rule (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1973.06, OMB Control No. 2040-
0241); ``ICR Supporting Statement Information Collection Request:
National Pretreatment Program'' (EPA ICR No. 0002.15, OMB Control No.
2040-0009); and ``ICR Supporting Statement Information Collection
Request for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Program (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0229.21, OMB Control No. 2040-0004) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collections as described below. This is a
proposed extension of the three ICRs, which are currently approved
through December 31, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers
provided for each item in the text online using www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Identify Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719 in the subject line), or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Letnes, State and Regional
Branch, Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.

A. List of ICRS Planned To Be Submitted

(1) ``Information Collection Request for Cooling Water Intake
Structures New Facility Final Rule (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1973.06,
OMB Control No. 2040-0241), expiration date: December 31, 2015. Docket
Number: EPA-HQ-OW_2008-0719
(2) ``ICR Supporting Statement Information Collection Request for
National Pretreatment Program'' (EPA ICR No. 0002.15, OMB Control No.
2040-0009), expiration date: December 31, 2015. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OW_2008-0719
(3) ``ICR Supporting Statement Information Collection Request for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0229.21, OMB Control No. 2040-0004),
expiration date: December 31, 2015. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW_2008-0719

B. Individual ICRS

(1) Information Collection Request for Cooling Water Intake Structures
New Facility Final Rule (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 1973.06, OMB Control No.
2040-0241), expiration date: December 31, 2015

    Abstract: Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that
``[a]ny standard established pursuant to [CWA section 301] or [CWA
section 306] and applicable to a point source shall require that the
location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake
structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact.'' The section 316(b) New Facility Rule (66 FR
65256; December 18, 2001) and minor amendments (68 FR 36749; June 19,
2003) implement section 316(b) of the

CWA as it applies to new facilities that use cooling water intake
structures (CWISs). The rule requires new facilities to submit several
distinct types of information as part of their NPDES permit
application. In addition, the rule requires new facilities to maintain
monitoring and reporting data as outlined by the Director in their
NPDES permits. The information requirements in this ICR are necessary
to ensure that new facilities are complying with the rule's provisions,
and thereby minimizing adverse environmental impact resulting from
impingement and entrainment losses due to the withdrawal of cooling
water.
    Applications for an NPDES permit may contain confidential business
information. However, EPA does not consider the specific information
being requested by the final rule to be typical of confidential
business or personal information. If a respondent does consider this
information to be of a confidential nature, the respondent may request
that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data
will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and
EPA's Security Manual part III, chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents affected include any new
industrial facility that operates a cooling water intake structure that
withdraws greater than 2 MGD of surface water and uses 25% or more of
this water for cooling purposes. While respondents for this ICR would
include any new facilities that meet the applicable requirements of the
rule, EPA estimates that there are six primary industrial sectors that
account for more than 99 percent of all cooling water used in the
United States: (1) Traditional steam electric utilities, (2) nonutility
power producers, (3) manufacturers in SIC Major Group 26 (paper and
allied products), (4) manufacturers in SIC Major Group 28 (chemicals
and allied products), (5) manufacturers in SIC Major Group 29
(petroleum and coal products, and (6) manufacturers in SIC Major Group
33 (primary metals). A detailed description of the SIC (and NAICS)
codes can be found at 66 FR 65257.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory--Section 316(b) New
Facility Rule (66 FR 65256; December 18, 2001) and minor amendments (68
FR 36749; June 19, 2003).
    Estimated number of respondents: The estimated number of
respondents is 145 (total).
    Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies depending
on the specific response activity and can range between monthly and
once every 5 years.
    Total estimated burden: 151,789 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $11,817,460 (per year), includes $2,267,728
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a net increase of 13,367 hours (10%)
in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR
currently approved by OMB. This increase is primarily due to the
addition of the newly built facilities and an increase in the number of
facilities are entering the renewal phase of the permitting process.
(2) ICR Supporting Statement Information Collection Request: National
Pretreatment Program'' (EPA ICR No. 0002.15, OMB Control No. 2040-
0009), expiration date: December 31, 2015.

    Abstract: This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with
managing and implementing the National Pretreatment Program as mandated
under sections 402(a) and (b) and 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or
the Act). This ICR includes all existing tasks under the National
Pretreatment Program, as amended by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Streamlining Rule. Section 402(b) of CWA requires EPA to
develop national pretreatment standards to control industrial
discharges into sewage systems. The purpose of these standards is to
prevent pollutants from passing through the treatment plant or
interfering with treatment plant operations, possibly resulting in
damage to the environment or a threat to public health.
    Reporting requirements may contain CBI, proprietary information, or
information containing compromising trade secrets. In such cases, the
respondent has the right to request that the information be treated as
CBI. If a respondent does consider this information to be of a
confidential nature, the respondent may request that such information
be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and EPA's Security Manual
part III, chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Various industrial categories,
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), Local and State governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory--Sections 402(a) and
(b) and 307(b) of the CWA.
    Estimated number of respondents: The estimated number of
respondents is 23,571 (total).
    Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies depending
on the specific response activity and can range between monthly and
once every 5 years.
    Total estimated burden: 1,744,406 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $77,907,187 (per year), includes $2,515,470
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a net decrease of 62,110 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This change is primarily the result of revised
estimates of the number of SIUs, including facilities that closed,
facilities that were downgraded from CIU or SIU status, and the
addition of facilities that opened or are newly permitted. The
reduction also reflects a reduction in the number of POTWs projected to
develop a pretreatment program during the three-year ICR period.
    (3) ICR Supporting Statement Information Collection Request for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
(Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 0229.21, OMB Control No. 2040-0004), expiration
date: December 31, 2015.
    Abstract: This consolidated ICR calculates the burden and costs
associated with the NPDES program, identifies the types of activities
regulated under the NPDES program, describes the roles and
responsibilities of state governments and the Agency, and presents the
program areas that address the various types of regulated activities.
It is an update of the 2011 Information Collection Request for the
NPDES Program (OMB Control Number: 2040-0004; EPA ICR Number: 0229.20)
that consolidated the burden and costs associated with activities
previously reported in ten of the 15 NPDES program or NPDES-related
ICRs administered by EPA's Water Permits Division. This renewal
includes the addition of the burden and costs for the Airport Deicing
Category, which were previously contained in a separate ICR.
    Permit applications and other respondent reports may contain
confidential business information. If a respondent does consider this
information to be of a confidential nature, the respondent may request
that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data
will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and
EPA's

Security Manual part III, chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.
    Form Numbers: OMB No. 2040-0086; OMB No. 2040-0250; OMB No. 2040-
0188, OMB No. 2040-0211; OMB No. 1004-0189; and OMB No. 2040-0004.
    Respondents/affected entities: Any industrial point source
discharger of pollutants, including but not limited to publicly owned
and privately owned treatment works (POTWs and PrOTWs), sewage sludge
management and disposal operations, small and large vessels, airports
with deicing operations, dischargers of stormwater, construction sites,
municipalities, local and state governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory. Sections 301, 302,
304, 306, 307, 308, 401, 402, 403, 405, and 510 of the CWA; the 1987
Water Quality Act (WQA) revisions to CWA section 402(p); 40 (CFR) Parts
122, 123, 124, and 125 (and Parts 501 and 503 for Biosolids); and the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act (CPA).
    Estimated number of respondents: 532,523 total (321,205 facilities,
210,681 vessels, and 637 States/Tribes/Territories).
    Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies depending
on the specific response activity and can range from ongoing and
monthly to once every 5 years.
    Total estimated burden: 21,038,480 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,035,773,445 (per year), includes
$20,453,959 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a net decrease of 286,261 (1.3%)
hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR
currently approved by OMB. This decrease is primarily due to a
reduction in the estimate of the number of respondents. This net
reduction included an increase in burden related to: The addition of
the burden associated with the airport deicing category; changes in the
burden associated with agency actions related to changes in the VGP;
and addition of burden associated with the issuance of the small
vessels general permit (sVGP).

    Dated: September 24, 2015.
Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2015-25345 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28494-28499]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08497]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0174; FRL-10008-24-OW]
RIN 2040-AF94

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable
to Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking
final action to amend the federal regulations to withdraw certain human
health water quality criteria applicable to waters in the State of
Washington. The EPA is taking this action because the State adopted,
and the EPA approved, human health criteria that the Agency determined
are protective of Washington's designated uses for its waters. In this
action, the EPA is amending the federal regulations to withdraw those
certain human health criteria applicable to Washington but promulgated
by the Agency, as described in the August 6, 2019 proposed rule. The
withdrawal will enable Washington to implement its EPA-approved human
health criteria, submitted on August 1, 2016, and approved on May 10,
2019, as applicable criteria for Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act)
purposes.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action identified
by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0174, at https://www.regulations.gov.
For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica Fleisig, Office of Water,
Standards and Health Protection Division (4305T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    Does this action apply to me?
II. Background
    What are the applicable federal statutory and regulatory
requirements?
III. What are the Federal Water Quality Criteria that the EPA is
withdrawing?
    A. Comments in Support of the EPA's Proposal To Withdraw the
Federal HHC
    B. Comments in Opposition to the EPA's Proposal To Withdraw the
Federal HHC
    C. Comments Concerning Methylmercury and Bis (2-Chloro-1-
Methylethyl) Ether
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    This final action withdraws certain federal human health criteria
(HHC) in the State of Washington that are no longer needed due to the
EPA's approval of the corresponding State HHC on May 10, 2019. Entities
discharging pollutants in Washington waters, citizens, as well as the
State of Washington may be interested in this rulemaking, because after
the effective date of this rulemaking Washington's EPA-approved HHC,
rather than the federal HHC, will be the applicable water quality
standards in Washington waters for CWA purposes. This action applies
only to waterbodies in the State of Washington and does not apply to
waters that are within Indian Country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person identified in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

What are the applicable federal statutory and regulatory requirements?

    Consistent with the CWA, the EPA's water quality standards (WQS)
program assigns to states and authorized tribes the primary authority
for adopting

WQS.\1\ After a state adopts WQS, the state must submit them to the EPA
for review and action in accordance with the CWA. If the EPA finds the
state WQS are based on sound science and protect the state's designated
uses, the CWA requires the EPA to approve those state WQS. The Act
authorizes the EPA to promulgate federal WQS following the EPA's
disapproval of state WQS or following an Administrator's determination
that new or revised WQS are ``necessary to meet the requirements of the
Act.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1313(a), (c).
    \2\ 33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 14, 2015, the EPA proposed a federal rule to establish
updated HHC in Washington based on an Administrator's determination
that new or revised WQS were necessary to meet the requirements of the
Act. Specifically, in its 2015 proposed rule, the EPA considered data
representing regional and local fish consumption that reflected
consumption levels much higher than the National Toxics Rule (NTR) fish
consumption rate of 6.5 grams/day, and accordingly ``determined that
the federal human health criteria in the NTR as applied to Washington
no longer protect the relevant designated uses of Washington's
waters.'' \3\ To address the Administrator's determination pursuant to
its CWA Section 303(c) authority, the EPA's proposed rulemaking
established HHC using a fish consumption rate of 175 grams/day.\4\ The
EPA also used all of the inputs from the EPA's recently updated 2015
CWA Section 304(a) national recommended water quality criteria for the
protection of human health to calculate the proposed federal
criteria.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Revision of Certain Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Washington, 80 FR 55063, 55066 (September 14, 2015).
    \4\ Id. at 55066-55067.
    \5\ Id. at 55063, 55066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the EPA's 2015 proposed rulemaking, on August 1, 2016,
Washington submitted HHC for the EPA's review.\6\ Washington's criteria
were based on a fish consumption rate of 175 grams/day and incorporated
most of the components of the EPA's updated 2015 CWA Section 304(a) HHC
recommendations.\7\ By using a fish consumption rate of 175 grams/day,
which is consistent with the EPA's proposed rulemaking, Washington's
HHC addressed the basis for the EPA's 2015 Administrator's
determination--that it is necessary to adopt new or revised HHC based
on a higher fish consumption rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Department of Ecology. Washington State Water Quality
Standards: Human health criteria and implementation tools, Overview
of key decisions in rule amendment. August 2016. Ecology Publication
no. 16-10-025.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons explained in the EPA's 2016 disapproval letter and
final federal rule, the EPA disapproved a subset of the HHC that
Washington submitted to the EPA.\8\ The EPA's final federal rule was
issued concurrent with its partial disapproval letter.\9\ In explaining
the rationale underlying the partial disapproval of Washington's August
1, 2016, submittal, the EPA ``agree[d] with Washington's decision to
derive the HHC using a FCR of 175 g/day,'' noting that the value was
consistent with the EPA's final federal rule.\10\ However, the EPA
disagreed with some of the risk management decisions the State made
during the development of its HHC and its decision not to incorporate
all components of the updated 2015 CWA Section 304(a) HHC
recommendations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ November 15, 2016. Letter (EPA Partial Disapproval Letter)
and enclosed Technical Support Document (Partial Disapproval TSD)
from Daniel D. Opalski, Director, Office of Water and Watersheds,
EPA Region 10 to Maia Bellon, Director, Department of Ecology, Re:
EPA's Partial Approval/Disapproval of Washington's Human Health
Water Quality Criteria and Implementation Tools; 81 FR 85417
(``Concurrent with this final rule, EPA is taking action under CWA
303(c) to approve in part, and disapprove in part, the human health
criteria submitted by Washington'').
    \9\ Revision of Certain Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Washington, 81 FR 85417 (November 28, 2016).
    Contrary to at least one comment letter EPA received prior to
its May 10, 2019 Decision to Approve Washington's criteria, the EPA
did not provide the State with 90 days to remedy the partial
disapproval, as envisioned in Section 303(c)(3) of the Act. See May
7, 2019 Letter from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe to Administrator
Andrew Wheeler, EPA, Re: Washington State Water Quality Standards at
4.
    \10\ Partial Disapproval TSD at 16.
    \11\ November 15, 2016. Letter (EPA Partial Disapproval Letter)
and enclosed Technical Support Document (Partial Disapproval TSD)
from Daniel D. Opalski, Director, Office of Water and Watersheds,
EPA Region 10 to Maia Bellon, Director, Department of Ecology, Re:
EPA's Partial Approval/Disapproval of Washington's Human Health
Water Quality Criteria and Implementation Tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the EPA promulgated HHC for Washington in the NTR, and
subsequently in November 2016, the EPA prefers that states maintain
primary responsibility and establish their own WQS in keeping with the
text and structure of the CWA. In response to a February 21, 2017,
petition from several entities asking the EPA to reconsider the partial
disapproval of Washington's August 2016 HHC,\12\ the EPA issued a
letter on August 3, 2018, stating its intent to reconsider the partial
disapproval of Washington's HHC and the subsequent promulgation of
federal criteria.\13\ After a thorough review of the State's 2016
submittal and applicable provisions of the CWA, its implementing
regulations, and longstanding EPA guidance, on May 10, 2019, the EPA
reconsidered its partial disapproval of Washington's HHC and approved
all but two of the criteria that the EPA previously disapproved.\14\ In
addition, the EPA approved four criteria for two pollutants (thallium
and 2,3,7,8-TCDD [dioxin]) that the EPA previously deferred action on
in November 2016. The EPA reaffirmed its November 2016 disapproval of
the two criteria that Washington submitted for arsenic (water +
organism and organism only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ February 21, 2017. Petition for Reconsideration of EPA's
Partial Disapproval of Washington's August 1, 2016 submission on
Human Health Water Quality Criteria and Implementation Tools, and
Repeal of the Final Rule Revision of Certain Federal Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Washington, 81 FR 85417 (November 28, 2016)
submitted by Northwest Pulp & Paper Association, American Forest and
Paper Association, Association of Washington Business, Greater
Spokane Incorporated, Treated Wood Council, Western Wood Preservers
Institute, Utility Water Act Group and Washington Farm Bureau.
    \13\ August 3, 2018. Letter from David P. Ross, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, EPA to Penny Shamblin, Counsel for
Utility Water Act Group, Re: Petition for Reconsideration of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Partial Disapproval of
Washington's Human Health Water Quality Criteria and Implementation
Tools submitted by the State of Washington on August 1, 2016, and
Repeal of the Final Rule Revision of Certain Federal Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Washington.
    \14\ May 10, 2019. Letter and enclosed Technical Support
Document from Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10
to Maia Bellon, Director, Department of Ecology, Re: The EPA's
Reversal of the November 15, 2016 Clean Water Act Section 303(c)
Partial Disapproval of Washington's Human Health Water Quality
Criteria and Decision to Approve Washington's Criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided in 40 CFR 131.21(c), federally promulgated WQS that are
more stringent than EPA-approved state WQS remain applicable for
purposes of the CWA until the EPA withdraws the federal standards.
Accordingly, on August 6, 2019 (84 FR 38150) the EPA proposed to amend
the federal regulations to withdraw those federally promulgated HHC for
which the EPA has approved Washington's HHC and provided an opportunity
for public comment on this proposed action. The EPA received comments
on the proposed rulemaking and a listing of the comments and the
Agency's responses are contained in the document ``Response to
Comments, Revision of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable
to Washington,'' which can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-
2015-0174. The EPA is now taking action to finalize the withdrawal of
the federal rule as proposed.
    The withdrawal of the federally promulgated criteria will enable

Washington to implement its EPA-approved HHC, consistent with the
federal and state roles contemplated by the CWA. Consistent with the
cooperative federalism structure of the CWA, once the EPA approves
state WQS addressing the same pollutants for which the EPA has
promulgated federal WQS, it is incumbent on the EPA to withdraw the
federal WQS to enable the EPA-approved state WQS to become the
applicable WQS for CWA purposes.

III. What are the federal water quality criteria that the EPA is
withdrawing?

    As discussed in the proposed rulemaking (see 84 FR 38150, August 6,
2019), this final rule amends the federal regulations to withdraw all
federal HHC promulgated for Washington in November 2016 at 40 CFR
131.45,\15\ with the exception of criteria for arsenic, methylmercury,
and bis (2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether. For arsenic, on May 10, 2019,
the EPA reaffirmed its November 2016 disapproval of the two criteria
Washington submitted for arsenic (water + organism and organism only),
and therefore the federal arsenic criteria, originally promulgated
under the NTR and now at 40 CFR 131.45 for Washington remain in
place.\16\ For priority pollutants methylmercury and bis (2-chloro-1-
methylethyl) ether, Washington did not submit criteria for those
pollutants in its 2016 WQS submittal. Therefore, the federal
methylmercury and bis (2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether criteria that the
EPA promulgated on November 28, 2016 (and that became effective on
December 28, 2016) remain in effect in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Revision of Certain Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Washington, 81 FR 85417 (November 28, 2016).
    \16\ May 10, 2019. Letter and enclosed Technical Support
Document from Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10
to Maia Bellon, Director, Department of Ecology, Re: The EPA's
Reversal of the November 15, 2016 Clean Water Act Section 303(c)
Partial Disapproval of Washington's Human Health Water Quality
Criteria and Decision to Approve Washington's Criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA did not make any changes in response to the comments
received on the proposed rulemaking. The EPA received 333 unique
comments on the proposed rulemaking and approximately 5,000 comments as
part of mass mailing campaigns. The EPA also held two public hearings
on the proposed rulemaking (an online hearing on August 28, 2019 and an
in-person hearing in Seattle, Washington on September 25, 2019) and
received public comments during those hearings. Brief summaries of the
comments and the EPA's responses are provided in this section. As noted
previously, a full accounting of the comments and the Agency's
responses can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.

A. Comments in Support of the EPA's Proposal To Withdraw the Federal
HHC

    Some commenters supported the EPA's May 10, 2019 decision to
approve Washington's HHC upon reconsideration and the EPA's proposal to
withdraw the federal HHC. These commenters asserted that Washington's
HHC were sufficiently protective of the applicable designated uses in
the State and that the federal HHC were unattainable and costly. These
commenters stated that implementation of Washington's HHC will result
in meaningful improvements to water quality, rather than regulatory
uncertainty. Some commenters also noted that withdrawing the federal
HHC could result in significant cost savings.
    The EPA appreciates the comments in support of its May 10, 2019
action and proposal to withdraw the federal HHC. More information on
the EPA's action to approve Washington's HHC upon reconsideration,
including the EPA's approval letter and associated Technical Support
Document, can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standards-regulations-washington and in the docket for this
proposed rule.
    Some of these commenters also asked the EPA to approve, upon
reconsideration, Washington's HHC for arsenic. Comments concerning the
EPA's disapproval of Washington's 2016 arsenic criteria are beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. The EPA's May 10, 2019 decision document sets
forth the EPA's rationale for the disapproval.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ May 10, 2019. Letter and enclosed Technical Support
Document from Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10
to Maia Bellon, Director, Department of Ecology, Re: The EPA's
Reversal of the November 15, 2016 Clean Water Act Section 303(c)
Partial Disapproval of Washington's Human Health Water Quality
Criteria and Decision to Approve Washington's Criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments in Opposition to the EPA's Proposal To Withdraw the Federal
HHC

    Other commenters opposed the EPA's proposal to withdraw the federal
HHC and requested that the EPA retain the federal criteria. Many of
these commenters focused on and described their opposition to the EPA's
May 10, 2019 decision to approve Washington's HHC upon reconsideration.
These commenters asserted that Washington's HHC are less stringent than
the federal HHC and therefore expressed concern that implementation of
Washington's HHC would reduce protections for human health, especially
among consumers of large quantities of fish sourced from the waters
subject to the HHC. Several commenters asserted that the EPA's approval
of Washington's HHC was arbitrary and capricious because they alleged
that Washington's HHC are not based on sound scientific rationale, and
accordingly urged the EPA to retain the federal criteria which they
asserted are based on sound scientific rationale. The EPA disagrees
with commenters who asserted or implied that all of Washington's HHC
are less stringent than the federal HHC. As described in the EPA's May
10, 2019 decision document, some of Washington's HHC are less stringent
than the federal HHC, and some are more stringent. Indeed, in 2016 the
EPA approved 45 of Washington's HHC that were as stringent or more
stringent than the EPA's calculated HHC. The EPA also disagrees with
commenters who asserted that the EPA's approval was arbitrary and
capricious and that Washington's HHC are not based on sound science.
The EPA's rationale is thoroughly described in the EPA's May 10, 2019
decision document, including the EPA's conclusion that Washington's HHC
are based on sound science and are protective of Washington's
designated uses.
    Commenters also raised concerns about the EPA's approval of
Washington's HHC for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and requested
that EPA retain the federal PCB criteria. Some of these commenters
asserted that the EPA lacks authority to reverse its prior disapproval
of Washington's HHC and that the reversal and withdrawal of the federal
rule would lead to litigation and regulatory uncertainty.
    The EPA's authority to promulgate new or revised federal criteria
is not at issue in this action to withdraw the federal criteria.
Because the EPA has approved certain HHC developed and submitted by the
State, the federal HHC that the Agency promulgated after its initial
disapproval of the State's 2016 submittal are no longer needed. This
action is consistent with the federal and state roles contemplated by
the CWA (see 40 CFR 131.21(c)). For the EPA's rationale for approving
Washington's HHC, see the May 10, 2019 decision document.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ May 10, 2019. Letter and enclosed Technical Support
Document from Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10
to Maia Bellon, Director, Department of Ecology, Re: The EPA's
Reversal of the November 15, 2016 Clean Water Act Section 303(c)
Partial Disapproval of Washington's Human Health Water Quality
Criteria and Decision to Approve Washington's Criteria.

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

C. Comments Concerning Methylmercury and Bis (2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl)
Ether

    Several commenters stated that the EPA should leave the federal HHC
in place for methylmercury and bis (2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether and
that the EPA cannot legally withdraw these HHC and leave nothing in
place. Other commenters stated that the federal methylmercury HHC are
unattainable and will result in widespread impairments across the
State. Some of these commenters questioned the scientific underpinnings
of the methylmercury HHC. Some commenters recommended that the EPA
promulgate a revised methylmercury HHC for Washington of 0.3 mg/kg in
fish tissue, which is the EPA's CWA Section 304(a) national recommended
criterion for methylmercury. All commenters who addressed this issue
noted that mercury is a ubiquitous pollutant in Washington's waters. No
commenters provided information on the presence or absence of bis (2-
chloro-1-methylethyl) ether in Washington's waters.
    CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) requires that states ``shall adopt
criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to Section 1317(a)(1)
of this title for which criteria have been published under Section
1314(a) of this title, the discharge or presence of which in the
affected waters could reasonably be expected to interfere with those
designated uses adopted by the State, as necessary to support such
designated uses.'' The EPA is retaining the federal HHC for
methylmercury and bis (2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether, consistent with
CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) for the following reasons: (1) Methylmercury
and bis (2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether are both priority pollutants,
(2) commenters and the EPA agree that methylmercury is ubiquitous in
Washington's waters, and (3) no commenters provided information that
counters the prior conclusion that these priority pollutants could be
expected to interfere with Washington's uses. The EPA is not
promulgating a revised HHC value for methylmercury. The 0.3 mg/kg CWA
Section 304(a) recommended HHC is based on a fish consumption rate of
17.5 g/day rather than the 175 g/day rate adopted by the State of
Washington and used by the EPA in deriving the federal HHC for
methylmercury. There is nothing in the EPA's rulemaking record that
indicates a different fish consumption rate should be used for a
methylmercury HHC. However, nothing in this action or in any federal
regulation would preclude a future rulemaking for HHC using a different
fish consumption rate that is supported by a rulemaking record.
    The EPA acknowledges the concerns that some commenters raised about
attainability of the existing federal methylmercury HHC. In 2010, the
EPA published the comprehensive Guidance for Implementing the January
2001 Methylmercury Water Quality Criterion (EPA 823-R-10-001) (``2010
Guidance''), to aid states and authorized tribes in implementing the
EPA's national CWA Section 304(a) recommended fish tissue-based
methylmercury water quality criterion. The EPA recommends that
Washington, like certain other states that have adopted a fish tissue-
based methylmercury criterion, implement the fish tissue criterion
using a combination of pollutant minimization plans, monitoring, and
effluent limits or trigger values as appropriate as explained in the
EPA's 2010 Guidance.
    In circumstances where attaining the methylmercury HHC may not be
feasible, the State could undertake a new rulemaking and exercise its
discretion in risk management to make adjustments to the HHC factors in
the EPA's 2015 304(a) HHC recommendations, including adopting a
different fish consumption rate that is supported by a rulemaking
record. Additionally, changes to the applicable designated use or
adoption of a WQS variance may be an option. The federal regulation at
40 CFR 131.10(g) provides requirements for establishing, modifying, and
removing designated uses when attaining the use is not feasible for one
of the six factors in the regulation. The federal regulation at 40 CFR
131.3(o) defines a WQS variance as a time-limited designated use and
criterion, for a specific pollutant or water quality parameter, that
reflects the highest attainable condition during the term of the WQS
variance. A WQS variance may be appropriate if attaining the use and
criterion would not be feasible during the term of the WQS variance
because of one of the seven factors specified in 40 CFR
131.14(b)(2)(i)(A), including if NPDES permit limits more stringent
than technology-based controls would result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact. WQS variances adopted in
accordance with 40 CFR 131.14 (including a public hearing consistent
with 40 CFR 25.5) provide a flexible but defined pathway for states and
authorized tribes to issue NPDES permits with limits that are based on
the highest attainable condition during the term of the WQS variance
thereby allowing dischargers to make water quality improvements when
the WQS is not immediately attainable but may be in the future.
    It may be possible for the EPA to identify widely applicable
reduction targets for mercury and other hard to treat pollutants by
partnering with interested states and authorized tribes to compile
literature and share data on available treatment technologies and
source reduction measures. The EPA has included in the docket for this
rulemaking a brief presentation that the Agency gave to Washington and
a handful of other states at a WQS program meeting in September 2019 to
begin a dialogue on these technical questions for select pollutants.
The EPA anticipates engaging further with Washington and other
interested states and authorized tribes on how to best address the
challenges associated with implementing the methylmercury HHC. The EPA
has established the email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for states
and authorized tribes to express interest in and/or provide ideas for
future discussion.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information-collection burden
under the PRA because it is administratively withdrawing federal
requirements that are no longer needed in Washington. It does not
include any information collection, reporting, or recordkeeping
requirements. The OMB has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR
part 131 and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0049.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Small
entities, such as small businesses or small governmental

jurisdictions, are not directly regulated by this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains no unfunded federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and
does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As this
action withdraws certain federally promulgated criteria, the action
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule
imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any state or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. In the State of Washington,
there are 29 federally recognized Indian tribes. As part of today's
action, the EPA has met its responsibilities under Executive Order
13175 and its Tribal Consultation Policy.
    The EPA initiated consultation with federally recognized tribal
officials under the EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian tribes early in the process of developing this rule to allow
meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA initially
offered tribal consultation on this rule making on May 21, 2019. EPA
staff then offered two informational calls for tribal staff on June 4
and 5, 2019, to assist tribes with the consultation process, including
the tribes' decisions on whether to accept the offer to consult. Many
tribes expressed dissatisfaction that EPA did not offer consultation
prior to its May 10, 2019, decision and questioned how meaningful the
EPA's offer for consultation was on this rule making as a result.
Between June and November 2019, the EPA's representatives traveled and
met in person with 16 tribes. One tribe considered the meeting to be a
formal government-to-government consultation. Additionally, members of
the Makah Tribe met with Headquarters and Region 10 representatives on
October 23, 2019 in Washington, DC, which the tribe considered to be
consultation.
    The tribes expressed opposition to the EPA's May 10, 2019 decision
and the withdrawal of the federal HHC. A central concern voiced by
tribes is that they believe the EPA did not engage in meaningful
consultation with tribal governments prior to its May 10, 2019
decision. Tribes expressed concern that treaty rights and the federal
government's trust responsibility were not considered adequately by the
EPA in the May 10, 2019 decision. Some of the tribes questioned the
EPA's authority to make such a decision. Tribes described the cultural
importance of fish and water to their livelihood and the local economy.
Although Washington's HHC do not apply in Indian Country, tribes
nonetheless were concerned about the health impacts of Washington's HHC
on their off-reservation treaty-reserved fishing rights and expressed a
desire for ``pristine'' waters for future generations. Tribes noted
that they believe implementation tools exist for the regulated
community to adapt and meet the federal criteria. Many of the tribes
indicated that they believe environmental protection can be balanced
with economic progress, especially through technology improvements.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action do not present a disproportionate risk to children.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
EPA is taking final action to amend the federal regulations to withdraw
certain HHC applicable to waters in the State of Washington. The
withdrawal will enable Washington to implement its EPA-approved HHC.
The EPA has previously determined that Washington's adopted and EPA-
approved criteria are protective of human health.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution
control.

    Dated: April 17, 2020.
Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 131 as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D--Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards

0
2. Amend Sec.  131.45 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  131.45   Revision of certain Federal water quality criteria
applicable to Washington.

* * * * *
    (b) Criteria for priority toxic pollutants in Washington. The
applicable human health criteria are shown in Table 1 to paragraph (b).

                                                                 Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Human Health Criteria for Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         A                                                                           B                                                                      C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Cancer slope                                      Reference                           Bio-          Water &
                                                       factor, CSF    Relative source contribution,     dose, RfD   Bio-accumulation    concentration    organisms
                Chemical                   CAS No.      (per mg/                 RSC (-)                  (mg/        factor (L/kg      factor (L/kg    ([micro]g/   Organisms only ([micro]g/L)
                                                      kg[middot]d)                                    kg[middot]d)       tissue)           tissue)          L)
                                                               (B1)  (B2)...........................         (B3)               (B4)              (B5)        (C1)  (C2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Arsenic *...........................     7440382            1.75  ...............................  ............  ................                44   \a\ 0.018  \a\ 0.14
2. Bis (2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether        108601  ..............  0.50...........................         0.04                 10  ................         400  900
 **.
3. Methylmercury.......................    22967926  ..............  2.7E-05........................       0.0001   ................  ................  ..........  \b\ 0.03 (mg/kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This criterion refers to the inorganic form of arsenic only.
\b\ This criterion is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury (EPA-
  823-R-01-001, January 3, 2001) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in the EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in
  fish tissue rather than in water.
* These criteria were promulgated for Washington in the National Toxics Rule at 40 CFR 131.36, and are moved into 40 CFR 131.45 to have one comprehensive human health criteria rule for
  Washington.
** Bis (2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether was previously listed as Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-08497 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 76153]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31213]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-12-000]

Allco Renewable Energy Limited v. Massachusetts Electric Company
d/b/a National Grid; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on November 30, 2011, pursuant to sections 206,
306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and
825h, Rules 206 and 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedures, 18 CFR 385.206 and
385.212 (2011), and section 210 of the Public Utilities Regulatory
Policies Act (PURPA), Allco Renewable Energy Limited filed a formal
complaint against Massachusetts Electric Company (National Grid)
alleging that National Grid violated section 210 of PURPA by
repudiating its obligations to pay a rate that is equal to its minimum
avoided cost to various qualifying facilities.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
upon Respondents.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 21, 2011.

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31213 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P