[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18570-18571]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08858]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1339]

Multiple Function Device Products: Policy and Considerations;
Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Multiple Function
Device Products: Policy and Considerations.'' This draft guidance
provides FDA's regulatory approach for products with multiple
functions, including at least one device function, in accordance with
the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). This draft guidance is not
final nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by June 26, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
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 comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment 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 written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-1339 for ``Multiple Function Device Products: Policy and
Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability.'' Received comments will be placed
in the docket and, except for those 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 a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments 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 comments. 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 comments 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 to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, 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.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled
``Multiple Function Device Products: Policy and Considerations'' to the
Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center
for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and

Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bakul Patel, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5458, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 13, 2016, the Cures Act was signed into law. Section
3060(a) of this legislation entitled ``Clarifying Medical Software
Regulation'' amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C
Act) to add section 520(o) (21 U.S.C. 360j(o)), which describes
software functions that are excluded from the definition of the term
device in section 201(h) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)). In
addition, section 520(o)(2) of the FD&C Act describes the regulation
and assessment of a software product with multiple functions, including
at least one device function and at least one software function that is
not a device. In this draft guidance, FDA provides its current thinking
on the regulation of products with multiple functions with at least one
device function. Although section 520(o)(2) of the FD&C Act applies to
the regulation of software products containing at least one device
function and at least one non-device function, FDA believes the same
principles apply to all multiple function products that contain at
least one device function.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on ``Multiple
Function Device Products: Policy and Considerations.'' It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance
is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search
capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance
documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. This
guidance document is also available at https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download
an electronic copy of ``Multiple Function Device Products: Policy and
Considerations'' may send an email request to [email protected]
to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document
number 17038 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information. These collections of information are subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information have
been approved by OMB as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The collections of information in this 21 CFR part or                                       Have been approved
                  guidance document:                         Regarding this topic:        under OMB control No.:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
803..................................................  Medical device reporting........                0910-0437
807, subparts A-D....................................  Registration and listing........                0910-0625
807, subpart E.......................................  Premarket notification..........                0910-0120
812..................................................  Investigational device exemption                0910-0078
814, subparts A-E....................................  Premarket approval applications.                0910-0231
814, subpart H.......................................  Humanitarian use devices........                0910-0332
820..................................................  Current good manufacturing                      0910-0073
                                                        practice and the quality system
                                                        regulation.
601..................................................  Biologics license applications..                0910-0338
``User Fees for 513(g) Requests for Information'' and  513(g) requests.................                0910-0705
 ``FDA and Industry Procedures for Section 513(g)
 Requests for Information under the Federal Food,
 Drug, and Cosmetic Act''.
``Requests for Feedback on Medical Device              Q-submissions and presubmissions                0910-0756
 Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings
 with Food and Drug Administration Staff''.
``De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of        De Novo requests................                0910-0844
 Automatic Class III Designation)''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 23, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-08858 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 38625]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16913]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9997-76-OA]

Request for Nominations of Consultants To Support the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) for the Particulate Matter and
Ozone Reviews

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office requests
public nominations for a pool of scientific consultants to support the
chartered CASAC by providing subject matter expertise, as requested, on
the scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
(PM) and ozone.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted by (August 21, 2019) per
instructions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations
may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff
Office, by telephone/voice mail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning the CASAC can be
found at the CASAC website at http://www.epa.gov/casac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was
established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
(42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee. The
CASAC provides advice, information and recommendations on the
scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and NAAQS
under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC shall also: Advise the
EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to
appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS;
describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required
information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution
to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic
activity; and advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public
health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result
from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS.
    As amended, Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires
that EPA reviews the NAAQS at five-year intervals and revise, as
appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six
``criteria'' air pollutants, including PM and ozone.
    This Federal Register notice solicitation is seeking nominations
for consultants to support the Chartered CASAC for the PM and ozone
reviews. These consultants will review science and policy assessments,
and related documents, and will make themselves available, as
requested, to provide feedback to the Chartered CASAC as part of EPA's
review of the PM and Ozone NAAQS. The Chartered CASAC will provide
advice to the EPA Administrator in a manner consistent with the Clean
Air Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, and CASAC's charter. These
consultants should be available for consultation, through CASAC's Chair
and Designated Federal Official. Chartered CASAC members will have the
opportunity to seek input from consultants through written requests
provided to CASAC's Chair and facilitated by the Designated Federal
Official.
    The Chartered CASAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As a Federal Advisory
Committee, the chartered CASAC conducts business in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related
regulations. The Chartered CASAC will comply with the provisions of
FACA.
    Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is seeking
nominations of scientists with demonstrated expertise and research in
the field of air pollution related to PM and ozone, including:
     Air quality, atmospheric science and chemistry (including
ambient measurements and satellite remote sensing aerosol optical depth
analysis);
     exposure assessment (including dispersion modeling,
photochemical grid modeling, and errors-in-variables methods and
effects of exposure/covariate estimation errors on epidemiologic study
results);
     dosimetry;
     toxicology;
     comparative toxicology (including extrapolation of
findings in animals to humans);
     controlled clinical exposure;
     epidemiology (including low-dose causal concentration-
response functions);
     biostatistics;
     human exposure modeling;
     causal inference;
     biological mechanisms of causation;
     risk assessment/modeling;
     multi-stressor interactions;
     ecology and effects on welfare and the environment;
     and effects on visibility impairment, climate, and
materials.
    Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified
individuals in the areas of expertise described above. Individuals may
self-nominate. Nominations should be submitted via email to the DFO,
Mr. Aaron Yeow, as identified above. EPA values and welcomes diversity.
All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of sex,
race, disability or ethnicity. Nominations should be submitted by
August 21, 2019.
    The following information should be provided to the DFO: Contact
information for the person making the nomination; contact information
for the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of
the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vitae; and a biographical sketch
of the nominee indicating current position, educational background;
research activities; sources of research funding for the last two
years; and recent service on other national advisory committees or
national professional organizations. Persons having questions about the
nomination process should contact the DFO, as identified above. The DFO
will acknowledge receipt of nominations. The Administrator shall select
the expert consultants.
    In selecting these consultants, the Administrator will consider
information provided by the candidates themselves, and additional
background information. Selection criteria to be used for selecting
consultants include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise,
knowledge, and experience (primary factors) necessary to address
anticipated questions from the CASAC; (b) availability and willingness
to provide feedback to the Chartered CASAC as requested; (c) skills
providing subject matter expertise to committees, subcommittees and
advisory panels; and, (d) diversity of expertise.

    Dated: July 29, 2019.
Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2019-16913 Filed 8-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4833-4834]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02017]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0342; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-6]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; for the Following Ohio Towns;
Millersburg, OH and Coshocton, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH; and
at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH due to the decommissioning of
Tiverton VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Distance Measuring
Equipment (DME), cancellation of the VOR approaches, and implementation
of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary
for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates
at Richard Downing Airport and Holmes County Airport would be adjusted
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH and Richard
Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH to support IFR operations at these
airports.

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (82 FR 55063; November 20, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-
0342 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH. and Richard
Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Subsequent to publication, an edit was made removing the city in
the airspace designation for Holmes County Airport to comply with a
recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 6.7-mile radius)
at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH. The segments within 2.7
miles either side of the 085[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.5 miles east of the airport and within
1.8 miles either side of the 236[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 8 miles southwest of the airport,
would be removed. This action also updates the geographic coordinates
of Holmes County Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.
    Additionally, the city is removed from the airport name in the
airspace description to comply with a recent change to FAA Order
7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, dated October 12,
2017.
    This action also modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a
6.3-mile radius) at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH, with a
segment within 2.0 miles (reduced from 4- miles) either side of the
037[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to
8.6 miles (reduced from 10- miles) northeast of the airport. This
action also updates the geographic coordinates of

Richard Downing Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.
    This action enhances the safety and management of standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Millersburg, OH [Amended]

Holmes County Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]32'12'' N, long. 81[deg]57'21'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Holmes County Airport.
* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Coshocton, OH [Amended]

Richard Downing Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]18'37'' N, long. 81[deg]51'09'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Richard Downing Airport and within 2.0
miles either side of the 037[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.6 miles northeast of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 26, 2018.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-02017 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8056-8061]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3237]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9114-1]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
California New Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines; Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Decision Granting Authorization of California's New
Nonroad Compression Ignition Engine Emission Standards

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today, pursuant to
section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(e), is
granting California its request for an authorization of its emission
standards and accompanying test procedures for new nonroad compression
ignition (CI) engines. EPA is also confirming that one sub-set of
California's amended regulations does fall within-the-scope of an
authorization that EPA previously granted.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this decision are contained in Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670. The docket is located at The Air Docket, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and may be
viewed between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The
telephone is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for
copying docket material.
    Additionally, an electronic version of the public docket is
available through the Federal Government's electronic public docket and
comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670 in ``Search Documents'' to view
documents in the record of CARB's nonroad compression ignition
authorization request. Although a part of the official docket, the
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristien G. Knapp, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    By this decision, issued pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean
Air Act (the ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7543(e), the Environmental Protection
Agency (``EPA'') has determined that the California Air Resources
Board's (``CARB's'') regulations and amendments regarding new nonroad
compression ignition (``CI'') engine emission standards and testing
procedures, that were adopted in 2000 and 2004-05, warrant EPA's
authorization. CARB's regulations and amendments meet the criteria for
such an authorization as outlined in section 209(e)(2) of the Act. CARB
has requested that EPA find that its nonroad CI regulations and
amendments fall within-the-scope of previously granted authorizations
or, in the alternative, that EPA adopt and apply a new ``harmonization
construct'' when California's emission standards harmonize with federal
emission standards. CARB's regulations and amendments affect three
power categories of nonroad CI engines as expressed in kilowatts (kW):
those less than 19 kW, those greater than 19 kW but less than 130 kW,
and those greater than 130 kW. EPA has previously granted
authorizations for California's Small Off-Road Engine less than 19 kW
(``SORE'') regulations.\1\ Subsequently, EPA confirmed that CARB's SORE
amendments were within-the-scope of that prior authorization.\2\ EPA
also previously granted an authorization for California's new heavy-
duty off-road diesel-cycle engines greater than 130 kW.\3\ EPA
subsequently confirmed that a later CARB amendment to those standards
was within-the-scope of that prior authorization.\4\ To summarize, the
smallest and largest categories of engines at issue here are the
subjects of prior EPA authorizations and within-the-scope
determinations, while the middle category of engines presents an
entirely new size category for EPA to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 60 FR 37440 (July 20, 1995).
    \2\ 68 FR 69763 (November 20, 2000).
    \3\ 60 FR 48981 (September 21, 1995).
    \4\ 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).

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

    In a letter dated July 18, 2008,\5\ CARB requested that EPA confirm
that its amendments to the regulations affecting the three nonroad CI
engine categories fall within-the-scope of the previously granted
authorizations for the less than 19 kW and greater than 130 kW
categories. CARB's amendments to the smallest category of engines
(those less than 19kW) that were completed as part of its 2000
Rulemaking, did not raise the stringency of those standards and EPA is
confirming today that they are within-the-scope of its previous
authorization. However, EPA has also found that this authorization
request raises new issues with respect to each category that requires
EPA to conduct a full authorization inquiry. For the smallest category,
while CARB's amendments affecting this category in the 2000 Rulemaking
are within-the-scope, increases to those standards' stringency in the
2004-05 Rulemaking raise new issues. For the middle category of nonroad
CI engines (those engines between 19 kW and 130 kW), those standards
present new issues for EPA's consideration because CARB's 2000
Rulemaking created the category and the 2004-05 Rulemaking increased
their stringency. For the largest category of engines, new issues are
presented due to increases in stringency as a result of both the 2000
and 2004-05 Rulemakings. These new issues warrant a full EPA
authorization evaluation for all three categories. Upon completion of
that evaluation, EPA is authorizing CARB to enforce these standards and
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0002. CARB originally requested a
within-the-scope authorization for its off-road CI engine
regulations that it had adopted in 2000, on July 16, 2004. CARB has
since asked that its July 18, 2008 request replace that previous
request and that EPA consider the 2000 regulations and amendments
together with the 2004-05 regulations and amendments as one within-
the-scope authorization request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or
political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to
enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of
emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section
209(e)(2) of the Act requires the Administrator to grant California
authorization to enforce its own standards for new nonroad engines
or vehicles which are not listed under section 209(e)(1), subject to
certain restrictions. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that
sets forth, among other things, the criteria, as found in section
209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California
authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission
standards.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). These regulations were
subsequently moved to 40 CFR part 1074 and modified slightly. See 73
FR 59379 (October 8, 2008).

    As stated in the preamble to the section 209(e) rule, EPA has
historically interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii) ``consistency''
inquiry to require, at minimum, that California standards and
enforcement procedures be consistent with section 209(a), section
209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that
subsection in the context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently
preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor
vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the
Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she
finds that California ``standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act.
Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that
state standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1) There is
inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary
technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance
within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures
impose inconsistent certification requirements.

B. California's Authorization Request

    In its July 18, 2008 letter to EPA, CARB notified EPA of additional
regulations and amendments to its nonroad CI emissions program and
asked EPA to confirm that these regulations and amendments are within-
the-scope of previous authorizations. EPA can make such a confirmation
if certain conditions are present. Specifically, if California acts to
amend a previously authorized standard or accompanying enforcement
procedure, the amendment may be considered as falling within-the-scope
of a previously granted authorization provided that it: (1) Does not
undermine California's determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable
Federal standards, (2) does not affect consistency with section 209 of
the Act, and (3) raises no new issues affecting EPA's previous
authorization.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Decision Document accompanying waiver determination
announced in 51 FR 12391 (April 10, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's request, as noted above, concerns its emissions
program for nonroad CI engines which are inclusively categorized by
three engine power classes. Since EPA's previous authorizations
regarding California's nonroad CI program, California has amended its
standards for two of the classes and established and amended standards
for the third class. These new standards and the amendments for each
class were adopted over the course of two distinct CARB rulemakings:
one in 2000 (hereinafter the ``2000 Rulemaking'') and another in 2004-
05 (hereinafter the ``2004-05 Rulemaking''). The 2000 Rulemaking
adopted by CARB generally harmonized California's emission standards
and test procedures to the federal standards for the same nonroad CI
engines that were promulgated in 1998 (Tier 1 through Tier 3).
Similarly, the 2004-05 Rulemaking generally harmonized California's
Tier 4 standards to the federal Tier 4 standards for these same nonroad
CI engines that EPA adopted in 2004. All of CARB's standards for
nonroad CI engines appear in Title 13 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) sections 2420-2427. The federal emission standards
for nonroad CI engines appear in 40 CFR parts 89 and 1039.
    The first category of engines includes nonroad CI engines under 19
kW. The 2000 Rulemaking merely re-codified California's previously
promulgated standards for this engine category, which EPA had
previously found to be within-the-scope of its SORE authorization.\9\
These standards were later amended in the 2004-05 Rulemaking to
increase the stringency for this category of engines by promulgating
Tier 4 standards, starting in the 2008 model year. These numerical
standards are identical to current Federal standards: California's
Tiers 1, 2, and 4 align to EPA's Tiers 1, 2, and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 65 FR 69767 (November 20, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second category of engines includes those nonroad CI engines
greater than 19 kW but less than 130 kW. This category of standards was
first established by the 2000 Rulemaking and was subsequently amended
in the

2004-05 Rulemaking. The standards began with model year 2000, requiring
the engines to meet Tier 1 standards; Tier 2 standards are required for
model years 2003 and 2004; and Tier 3 standards are required for model
years 2007 and 2008. All of these standards for this engine size
category are numerically identical to federal standards, with
California's Tiers 1 through 3 matching EPA's Tiers 1 through 3.\10\
Finally, California's Tier 4 standards are required of all model year
engines including and later than the 2009 model year. California's Tier
4 standards largely align to EPA's Tier 4 standards for this category
with the slight difference that California maintains separate NMHC and
NOX standards while for some engines EPA has a combined
NMHC+NOX standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third category of engines includes those nonroad CI engines
greater than 130 kW. This category of standards was amended, including
increases in numerical stringency, in both the 2000 Rulemaking and
2004-05 Rulemaking. As with the above-described categories, the
standards for this category align with federal standards: Tier 2
standards are required for model years 2001-2006, Tier 3 standards are
required for model year 2006-2010, and Tier 4 standards are required
for model years beginning with and beyond 2011. All tiers of California
standards numerically match the corresponding federal standards for the
same engine size.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the heart of both CARB's 2000 and 2004-05 Rulemakings were
adoption of the above-noted emission standards. In each proceeding,
though, additional amendments to California's regulations were made,
largely to harmonize with Federal compliance and enforcement
procedures. In its 2000 Rulemaking, CARB adopted requirements mirroring
federal requirements for maintenance intervals, recordkeeping,
warranties, test procedures, certification test fuel, and engine useful
life.\12\ At that time, CARB also provided for implementation
flexibility for post-manufacture marinizers and optional reduced-
emission standard labeling requirements for ``Blue Sky Series'' CI
engines. In its 2004-05 Rulemaking, CARB, in addition to its adoption
of emission standards, continued to harmonize its compliance and
enforcement procedures to the corresponding federal compliance and
enforcement procedures. Specifically, CARB adopted federal
modifications that EPA had adopted in our Final Rule for Control of
Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel and
EPA's Final Rule for Test Procedures for Testing Highway and Nonroad
Engines Omnibus Technical Amendments.\13\ CARB adopted federal
procedures for not-to-exceed limits, incentives for early introduction
of engines with advanced after-treatment, new test procedures and test
cycles, and enhanced in-use compliance provisions and flexibilities.
California's 2004-05 Rulemaking does include some additional
requirements ``that are intended to provide additional safeguards for a
more identifiable and enforceable deployment of flexibility allowances
in California.'' \14\ Those supplemental requirements include
additional labeling content requirements beyond that required by the
federal program, a required CARB Executive Order for engines certified
under the transitional flexibility program, and the maintenance of
California's own in-use warranty/recall program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CARB's Request at 10; EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0002; see
also CARB's Exhibit 4, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0012 and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0670-0013, and CARB's Exhibit 5, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0014.
    \13\ 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004), 70 FR 40421 (July 13, 2005).
    \14\ See CARB's Request at 14, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0002; see
also CARB Exhibit 12, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0023, and CARB Exhibit
13, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's Consideration of CARB's Request

    Because EPA believed it possible that CARB's amendments did in fact
raise ``new issues'' as they impose new standards for the category of
nonroad CI engines between 19 kW and 130 kW and raise the stringency of
standards for the smaller and larger categories of nonroad CI engines,
EPA offered the opportunity for a public hearing and requested public
comments on these new standards and testing procedures.\15\ EPA
received no request for a public hearing, nor was any comment received
on the CARB standards and procedures at issue. Therefore, EPA has made
this determination based on the information submitted by CARB in its
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 73 FR 58583 (October 7, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Standard and Burden of Proof in Clean Air Act Section 209
Proceedings

    In Motor and Equip. Mfrs. Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir.
1979) (hereinafter ``MEMA I''), the United States Court of Appeals
stated that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

    [C]onsider all evidence that passes the threshold test of
materiality and * * * thereafter assess such material evidence
against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties
favoring a denial * * * have shown that the factual circumstances
exist in which Congress intended a denial * * *.\16\

    \16\ Motor and Equip. Mfrs. Assoc. v. EPA (MEMA I), 627 F.2d
1095, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court in MEMA I considered the standards of proof pursuant to
section 209 for the two findings necessary to grant a waiver for an
``enforcement procedure'' (as opposed to the standards themselves): (1)
``Protectiveness in the aggregate'' and (2) ``consistency with section
202(a)'' findings. The court instructed that, ``the standard of proof
must take account of the nature of the risk of error involved in any
given decision, and it therefore varies with the finding involved. We
need not decide how this standard operates in every waiver decision.''
\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a
waiver, ``there must be `clear and compelling evidence' to show that
proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's
standards.'' \18\ The court noted that this standard of proof ``also
accords with the congressional intent to provide California with the
broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective
of the public health and welfare.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not
articulate a standard of proof applicable to all section 209
proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to
meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere
preponderance of the evidence. Although MEMA I did not explicitly
consider the section 209 standards of proof concerning an authorization
request for nonroad emission standards and testing procedures, there is
nothing in the opinion that suggests the court's analysis would not
apply with equal force in such determinations. EPA's past section 209
decisions have consistently made clear that:

    [E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment
by this legislation--the existence of ``compelling and
extraordinary'' conditions and whether the standards are
technologically feasible--Congress intended that the standards of
EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., 40 FR 23, 102-103 (May 28, 1975).

    Furthermore, Congress intended that EPA's review of California's
decision-making be narrow in scope.\21\ This has

led EPA in the past to reject arguments that are not specified within
the statute as grounds for denying a waiver or authorization:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110-11, citing H.R. Rep.
No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301-02 (1977).

    The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied
unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly
be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is
likely to result in only marginal improvement in air quality not
commensurate with its cost or is otherwise an arguably unwise
exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision
under section 209, so long as the California requirement is
consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable
Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further
reduction in air pollution in California.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 36 FR 17458 (August 31, 1971). Note that the ``more
stringent'' standard expressed here in 1971, was superseded by the
1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California's
standards must be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of
public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.

    Thus, EPA's consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning
this authorization decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those
questions which the Administrator is directed to consider by section
209.
    Finally, opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing whether
California's waiver request is inconsistent with section 202(a). As
found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with opponents in a
section 209 proceeding; the court held that:

    The language of the statute and its legislative history indicate
that California's regulations, and California's determinations that
they comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator
are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden
of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. California must
present its regulations and findings at the hearing, and thereafter
the parties opposing the waiver request bear the burden of
persuading the Administrator that the waiver request should be
denied.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ MEMA I at 1121.

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to determine that
she has made a reasonable and fair evaluation of the information in the
record when coming to the waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I
stated, ``[h]ere, too, if the Administrator ignores evidence
demonstrating that the waiver should not be granted, or if [s]he seeks
to overcome that evidence with unsupported assertions of [her] own,
[s]he runs the risk of having [her] waiver decision set aside as
arbitrary and capricious.'' \24\ Therefore, the Administrator's burden
is to act ``reasonably.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 1126.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

A. California's Protectiveness Determination

    Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that CARB was arbitrary and
capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards. CARB's Board made a protectiveness
determination in Resolution 00-3, dated January 27, 2000, finding that
sections 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2400, 2401, 2403, 2420-27
and Appendix A to article 2.1, chapter 2, division 3 of Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, as amended, (the 2000 Rulemaking) will
not cause the California emission standards, in the aggregate, to be
less protective of public health and welfare than applicable Federal
standards.\26\ A similar protectiveness determination was made in
Resolution 04-43, dated October 21, 2005, with regard to amended
sections 2420-2427 and new section 2425.1 and the three amended test
procedures incorporated by reference therein to Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations (the 2004-5 Rulemaking).\27\ CARB's
protectiveness determinations in both rulemakings were, therefore,
based on comparisons to the Federal standards which demonstrate that
CARB's standards and test procedures align with the Federal program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ``Be It Further Resolved that the Board hereby determines
that the regulations adopted herein will not cause the California
emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of
public health and welfare than applicable federal standards.'' CARB
Resolution 00-3 at 6 (January 27, 2000), CARB's Exhibit 2, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0004.
    \27\ ``Be It Further Resolved that the Board hereby determines
that the regulations approved herein will not cause the California
emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of
public health and welfare than applicable federal standards.'' CARB
Resolution 04-43 at 6 (October 21, 2005), CARB's Exhibit 9, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0670-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA did not receive any comments stating that CARB's
nonroad CI requirements are not, in the aggregate, as stringent as
applicable Federal standards.
    Therefore, based on the record before me, I cannot find that CARB's
nonroad CI regulations and amendments, as noted, would cause the
California nonroad emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less
protective of public health and welfare than applicable Federal
standards.

B. Need for California Standards To Meet Compelling and Extraordinary
Conditions

    Section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that California ``does not need such
California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions *
* *.'' This criterion restricts EPA's inquiry to whether California
needs its own mobile source pollution program to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions, and not whether any given standards are
necessary to meet such conditions.\28\ As to the need for the
particular standards that are the subject of this decision, California
is entrusted with the power to select ``the best means to protect the
health of its citizens and the public welfare.'' \29\ CARB has
repeatedly demonstrated the existence of compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR 18887, 18889-
18890 (May 3, 1984).
    \29\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 301-02
(1977)(cited in MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110).
    \30\ CARB expressed its needs for its own emission control
program in both of the rulemakings at issue here. (``Be It Further
Resolved that the Board hereby finds that separate California
emission standards and test procedures are necessary to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions.'' CARB Resolution 00-3 at 6
(January 27, 2000), CARB's Exhibit 2; CARB Resolution 04-43 at 6
(October 21, 2005), CARB's Exhibit 9, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0021.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has not received any adverse comments to suggest that
California no longer suffers from serious and unique air pollution
problems. In its authorization request letter, CARB concluded that
``there can be no doubt of the continuing existence of compelling and
extraordinary conditions justifying California's need for its own
nonroad vehicle and engine emissions control program.'' \31\ EPA has
repeatedly declined to find fault in California's demonstrations of
``compelling and extraordinary conditions'' when waiving preemption for
motor vehicle emission standards and authorizing nonroad emission
standards.\32\ Moreover, because EPA has

not received adverse public comment challenging California's need for
its own mobile source pollution control program or asserting any change
from California's previous demonstrations, I cannot deny the
authorization based on a lack of compelling and extraordinary
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ CARB's Request Letter at 32, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0002.
    \32\ See, e.g., 74 FR 3030, 3033 (January 16, 2009);
``California State Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Pollution Control
Standards; Decision of the Administrator (Authorization of In-Use
Emission Standards for Transport Refrigeration Unit Engines),'' EPA-
HQ-OAR-2005-0123-0049, at 19, available at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648082352c (``EPA has agreed with
CARB, in earlier nonroad engine standards requests, that
California's continuing extraordinary conditions justify separate
California programs.''); 71 FR 75536 (December 15, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Section 209 of the Clean Air Act

    Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant
an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures
are not consistent with section 209. As delineated above in Section
II.A., EPA has historically evaluated this criterion for consistency
with sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C). First, California's
nonroad CI engine emission standards are consistent with section 209(a)
because they do not apply to new motor vehicles or engines. Second,
California's nonroad CI engine emission standards are consistent with
section 209(e)(1) because they do not affect new farming or
construction vehicles or their engines below 175 hp, or new locomotives
or their engines.\33\ Third, the requirement that California's
standards be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act
effectively requires consistency with section 202(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See CARB's ``Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for
Rulemaking,'' for a general list of off-road diesel engines that are
excepted from this regulation (page 25) as well as a specific list
of preempted applications (Appendix A at page 104). CARB's Exhibit
11, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0670-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) of the
Act if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of
technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time. California's
accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with
section 202(a) if the Federal and California test procedures were not
consistent.
    The scope of EPA's review of whether California's action is
consistent with section 202(a) is narrow. The determination is limited
to whether those opposed to the authorization or waiver have met their
burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically
infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements
inconsistent with the Federal test procedure.\34\ EPA did not receive
any comments suggesting that CARB's standards are inconsistent with
section 202(a); therefore, I cannot deny California's authorization
based on the standard of review for consistency with section 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ MEMA I, 627, F.2d at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Technological Feasibility
    Congress has stated that the consistency requirement of section
202(a) relates to technological feasibility.\35\ Section 202(a)(2)
states, in part, that any regulation promulgated under its authority
``shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance
within such period.'' Section 202(a) thus requires the Administrator to
first determine whether adequate technology already exists; or if it
does not, whether there is adequate time to develop and apply the
technology before the standards go into effect. The latter scenario
also requires the Administrator to decide whether the cost of
developing and applying the technology within that time is feasible.
Previous EPA waivers are in accord with this position.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
    \36\ See, e.g., 49 FR 1887, 1895 (May 3, 1984); 43 FR 32182,
32183 (July 25, 1978); 41 FR 44209, 44213 (October 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a previous EPA waiver decision considered California's
standards and enforcement procedures to be consistent with section
202(a) because adequate technology existed as well as adequate lead
time to implement that technology.\37\ Subsequently, Congress has
stated that, generally, EPA's construction of the waiver provision has
been consistent with congressional intent.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 41 FR 44209 (October 7, 1976).
    \38\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As CARB notes, all three categories of the nonroad CI regulations
have been written to align and harmonize California standards with
Federal standards and testing procedures. Notably, because California's
standards align to Federal standards, these are the same numerical
standards that EPA, in the course of its own rulemaking under Clean Air
Act authority, has already determined to be technologically feasible.
    EPA did not receive any comments suggesting that CARB's standards
and testing procedures are technologically infeasible. Consequently,
based on the record before me, I cannot deny California's authorization
based on technological infeasibility.
2. Consistency of Certification Procedures
    California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the California test
procedures were to impose certification requirements inconsistent with
the Federal certification requirements. Such inconsistency means that
manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and Federal
testing requirements using the same test vehicle or engine.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB makes clear that its nonroad CI certification procedures, for
all three power categories, align with Federal certification procedures
so that a manufacturer can use the same test engine to certify for both
emissions programs.
    EPA received no comments suggesting that CARB's nonroad CI
requirements pose a testing procedure consistency problem. Therefore,
based on the record before me, I cannot find that CARB's testing
procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a). I cannot, then, deny
CARB's request based on this criterion.

D. Within-the-Scope Authorizations

    CARB suggests in its request letter that since the new requirements
for two of the categories are amendments to previously authorized
California standards and that all three categories of regulations align
California requirements to Federal requirements, this request should be
found as within-the-scope of previous EPA authorizations. Typically, if
California acts to amend a previously authorized standard or
accompanying enforcement procedure, the amendment may be considered
within-the-scope of a previously granted authorization provided that
it: (1) Does not undermine California's determination that its
standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable federal standards, (2) does not affect
consistency with section 209 of the Act, and (3) raises no new issues
affecting EPA's previous authorization.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See, e.g., 51 FR 12391 (April 10, 1986) and 65 FR 69673,
69674 (November 20, 2000). The first within-the-scope determination
stated that a CARB request made subsequent to an EPA waiver,
``exists within the meaning and intent of the waiver granted.'' 37
FR 14831 (July 25, 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only one sub-set of the standards for which CARB requests a within-
the-scope confirmation meets EPA's above-noted third criterion for
within-the-scope confirmation. Because the smallest category of nonroad
CI engines were merely re-codified as a result of

the 2000 Rulemaking, that sub-set of standards from the 2000 rulemaking
does meet the third criterion for a within-the-scope confirmation.
Indeed, the mere re-codification of previously authorized standards
that does not increase numerical stringency does not raise any new
issues that affect EPA's prior authorization.
    Even though the first two within-the-scope criteria have already
been established above for all three engine categories, the third
criterion prevents EPA from considering this entire request as within-
the-scope of EPA's prior authorizations. First, since the middle
category of engines has not been previously authorized, it very clearly
presents a ``new issue'' that has not previously been subject to an
authorization request.\41\ Additionally, CARB increased the stringency
of its own standards for the smallest category of nonroad CI engines in
its 2004-05 Rulemaking and for the largest category of nonroad CI
engines in both its 2000 and 2004-05 Rulemakings. EPA has stated in
prior waiver and authorization determinations that increases in
numerical stringency of standards are ``new issues'' for which a full
waiver or authorization is required.\42\ EPA, therefore, believes it
appropriate to go beyond an examination of whether the new requirements
affect the prior consistency with section 202(a) finding and, in this
context, requires a new analysis of whether the new requirements
standing on their own are consistent with section 209. As detailed
already, above in Section III, EPA finds that CARB has demonstrated
that it meets the requirements for a full section 209(e) authorization
for all three categories of nonroad CI engines. EPA, therefore,
believes a full authorization is appropriate for the new middle
category of standards and the more stringent standards for the smallest
and largest categories.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\  See 50 FR 20126 at 20127 (May 14, 1985)(``[B]y extending
California's standards and test procedures to vehicles not
previously covered, these amendments do raise significant new issues
not considered in prior waiver decisions.'')
    \42\ See, e.g., 71 FR 44027 at 44028 (August 3, 2006)(``EPA
believed it possible that CARB's amendments do in fact raise ``new
issues'' as they impose new more stringent standards * * *'') and 51
FR 6308 at 6309 (February 21, 1986)(``[T]hese amendments do raise
significant new issues not considered in prior waiver decisions. In
effect, California's amendments establish new standards * * *'').
    \43\ To the extent that the 2000 rulemaking's amendments to the
smallest category are construed as not within-the-scope of EPA's
prior authorization, then a full authorization is appropriate and
granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to the within-the-scope confirmation, California
proposes that EPA adopt and apply a new ``harmonization construct,''
under which EPA would limit its review of California's standards and
presumptively authorize California to enforce more stringent California
standards if those standards align with--but do not surpass--EPA's
Federal emission standards. Although EPA has considered CARB's proposed
harmonization construct, we did not receive any comment on this
authorization request, which leaves us with no public input on the
appropriateness of adopting such a construct. Lacking public input on
this authorization request, the Agency does not believe it appropriate
to adopt such a construct at this time, without further consideration.
While EPA is not adopting this proposed construct at this time, we may
consider and apply it in future waivers if appropriate.

IV. Decision

    EPA's analysis finds that the criteria for granting a full
authorization have been met for these regulations and amendments. All
three engine categories require a full authorization because ``new
issues'' are presented by new or more stringent standards in each
category. For the smallest category of engines (those less than 19kW),
numerical emission standards were raised in CARB's 2004-05 Rulemaking.
These standards require and have met the criteria for a full
authorization. CARB's amendments to this category's standards in its
2000 Rulemaking did not increase the standards' stringency and, thus,
EPA can confirm that those standards fall within-the-scope of EPA's
previous authorization for those standards. CARB is newly regulating
the middle category of engines (those between 19 kW and 130 kW). EPA
determined that this entire category presents new issues for which it
must conduct a full authorization evaluation. Upon application of that
evaluation, EPA has determined that CARB has met the requirements for a
full authorization. For the largest category of engines (those greater
than 130 kW), CARB has raised emission standards in both of its
rulemakings. The increased stringency raised new issues for EPA to
consider and required EPA to apply a full authorization analysis. Upon
evaluation, EPA has determined that CARB has met the criteria for a
full authorization for these standards.
    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California a
section 209(e) authorization to enforce its own emission standards for
nonroad engines to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
Having given consideration to all the material submitted for this
record, and other relevant information, I find that I cannot make the
determinations required for a denial of an authorization pursuant to
section 209(e) of the Act. Therefore, I grant authorization to the
State of California with respect to its new nonroad CI engine
requirements as set forth above.
    My decision will affect not only persons in California but also
manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's
requirements in order to produce engines for sale in California. For
this reason, I determine and find that this is a final action of
national applicability for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this
final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be
filed by April 26, 2010. Judicial review of this final action may not
be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section
307(b)(2) of the Act.
    As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: February 5, 2010.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010-3237 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34139]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0494]

Security Zones, Seattle's Seafair Fleet Week Moving Vessels,
Puget Sound, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of non-enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will not enforce the security zones for
Seattle's Seafair Fleet Week moving vessels, Puget Sound, WA in July or
August 2021. The Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound has determined
that enforcement of this regulation is not necessary because the event
is cancelled.

DATES: The Coast Guard does not plan to enforce regulations in 33 CFR
165.1333 in July or August 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of non-enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Peter
McAndrew, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard normally enforces the
Security Zones in 33 CFR 165.1333 for the Seattle Seafair Fleet Week
moving vessels and parade of ships. This event is typically held
annually during the parade of ships between July 25 and August 14. This
year, the event organizers cancelled Seafair and Fleet Week. Therefore,
the Coast Guard does not plan to enforce the security zones in 33 CFR
165.1333 in July or August 2021.
    In addition to this notification of non-enforcement in the Federal
Register, if the situation changes and the Captain of the Port Sector
Puget Sound (COTP) determines that the regulated area needs to be
enforced, the COTP will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
provide actual notice of enforcement to any persons in the regulated
area.

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
P.M. Hilbert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2021-13834 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5081-5083]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1930]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8165]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., , unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain  federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             Date            assistance  no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available  in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region III

Virginia: Petersburg, City of,         510112  November 7, 1973,  Feb. 4, 2011..........  Feb. 4, 2011.
 Independent City.                              Emerg; March 16,
                                                1981, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
            Region V

Illinois:
    Banner, Village of, Fulton         170743  December 30,       ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                July 2, 1981,
                                                Reg; February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Fulton County,                     170241  November 13,       ......do*.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1979, Emerg;
                                                January 17,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Lewistown, City of, Fulton         170782  July 28, 1975,     ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; October
                                                5, 1984, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Liverpool, Village of,             170762  December 10,       ......do*.............   Do.
     Fulton County.                             1974, Emerg;
                                                June 15, 1981,
                                                Reg; February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Mark, Village of, Putnam           170572  April 23, 1976,    ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; January
                                                3, 1985, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Putnam County,                     170993  June 5, 1981,      ......do*.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; November
                                                15, 1984, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Standard, Village of,              171012  January 16, 1984,  ......do*.............   Do.
     Putnam County.                             Emerg; March 1,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
Minnesota: Bertha, City of,            270474  April 7, 1975,     ......do*.............   Do.
 Todd County                                    Emerg; July 17,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Browerville, City of, Todd         270475  April 16, 1974,    ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                30, 1988, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Clarissa, City of, Todd            270476  April 30, 1974,    ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 3,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Eagle Bend, City of, Todd          270477  July 2, 1974,      ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 3,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Hewitt, City of, Todd              270478  September 16,      ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                June 8, 1984,
                                                Reg; February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Long Prairie, City of, Todd        270479  April 16, 1974,    ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 16,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Todd County, Unincorporated        270551  February 1, 1974,  ......do*.............   Do.
     Areas.                                     Emerg; September
                                                1, 1988, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
           Region VI
Arkansas:
    Harrisburg, City of,               050173  February 27,       ......do*.............   Do.
     Poinsett County.                           1975, Emerg;
                                                November 1,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Lepanto, City of, Poinsett         050174  July 17, 1974,     ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 4,
                                                1988, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Marked Tree, City of,              050175  May 21, 1975,      ......do*.............   Do.
     Poinsett County.                           Emerg; July 16,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Poinsett County,                   050172  May 6, 1983,       ......do*.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; August
                                                19, 1987, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Trumann, City of, Poinsett         050176  September 5,       ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    1974, Emerg;
                                                April 15, 1979,
                                                Reg; February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Tyronza, City of, Poinsett         050371  May 12, 1975,      ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                28, 1982, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Waldenburg, Town of,               050497  June 16, 2010,     ......do*.............   Do.
     Poinsett County.                           Emerg; February
                                                4, 2011, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Weiner, City of, Poinsett          050373  October 31, 1975,  ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                28, 1982, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
Oklahoma:
    Boynton, Town of, Muskogee         400120  June 24, 1976,     ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                28, 1979, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Braggs, Town of, Muskogee          400121  October 30, 1975,  ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; May 25,
                                                1978, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Fort Gibson, Town of,              400123  July 8, 1977,      ......do*.............   Do.
     Cherokee and Muskogee                      Emerg; July 16,
     Counties.                                  1980, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Haskell, Town of, Muskogee         400124  August 7, 1975,    ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; December
                                                4, 1979, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Muskogee, City of, Muskogee        400125  April 22, 1975,    ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 2,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Muskogee County,                   400491  September 27,      ......do*.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1985, Emerg;
                                                March 4, 1991,
                                                Reg; February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Oktaha, Town of, Muskogee          400126  October 14, 1975,  ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; May 25,
                                                1978, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Porum, Town of, Muskogee           400127  May 21, 1976,      ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 15,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.

    Taft, Town of, Muskogee            400128  June 26, 1976,     ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                25, 1987, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Wainwright, Town of,               400129  March 9, 1976,     ......do*.............   Do.
     Muskogee County.                           Emerg; August 8,
                                                1978, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Warner, Town of, Muskogee          400130  December 29,       ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    1976, Emerg; May
                                                25, 1978, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Webbers Falls, Town of,            400131  November 28,       ......do*.............   Do.
     Muskogee County.                           1975, Emerg; May
                                                1, 1980, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
Texas:
    Bandera County,                    480020  January 21, 1974,  ......do*.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; November
                                                1, 1978, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Benavides, City of, Duval          480792  July 24, 1975,     ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; March 4,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Colorado County, WCID              481489  October 28, 1977,  ......do*.............   Do.
     Number 2.                                  Emerg; June 1,
                                                1988, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Colorado County,                   480144  February 29,       ......do*.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1980, Emerg;
                                                September 19,
                                                1990, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Columbus, City of, Colorado        480145  February 19,       ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                June 19, 1985,
                                                Reg; February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Duval County,                      480202  July 24, 1975,     ......do*.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; May 1,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Eagle Lake, City of,               480146  July 30, 1975,     ......do*.............   Do.
     Colorado County.                           Emerg; April 1,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    Lamesa, City of, Dawson            480191  February 25,       ......do*.............   Do.
     County.                                    1972, Emerg;
                                                April 30, 1976,
                                                Reg; February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
    San Diego, City of, Duval          481199  December 26,       ......do*.............   Do.
     and Jim Wells Counties.                    1975, Emerg;
                                                March 1, 1987,
                                                Reg; February 4,
                                                2011, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: January 19, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 2011-1930 Filed 1-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P