Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 18759 

machines were much heavier than the 

wind turbine generator produced by the 

domestic manufacturer that withdrew 

from the project. The use of a heavier 

machine would add significantly to 

project expenses and delay the project 

schedule because a foundation redesign 

would be required and the foundation 

for this project is already under 

construction. Lastly, the Authority 

concluded that none of the domestic 

manufacturers contacted could meet the 

City’s zoning law requirement that the 

wind turbine generator emit less than 

104 decibels of noise. 

The Authority states that only the 

Leitwind LTW 77 foreign manufactured 

model meets the size and noise 

requirements for this project. Although 

the Leitwind LTW 77 does not use the 

same site consideration limitations that 

are used by the domestic manufacturer 

that withdrew from the project and 

notwithstanding that there are currently 

no local, State, or Federal requirements 

regulating the setback distances 

associated with the operation of wind 

turbines, the Authority has indicated 

that it has taken all necessary 

precautions to eliminate ice shedding. 

Such mitigation measures include, but 

are not limited to, the incorporation of 

controls with three levels of redundancy 

to shut down the turbine during 

potential glaze icing events and the 

restarting of the turbine only after a 

detailed visual inspection is completed, 

vibration sensors on the blades that 

recognize if the blades are out of balance 

due to ice formation, and the 

positioning of the shut down turbine to 

facilitate ice shedding directly into a 

fenced enclosure with posted warning 

signs directly below the turbine. 

Also, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) notified the 

Authority that its study revealed that a 

wind turbine generator on the site 

would not be a hazard to air navigation, 

provided that the turbine structure is 

marked and/or lighted, in accordance 

with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7640–1 

K Change 2. The Authority confirmed 

that the LTW 77 specifications fall 

within the scope of the FAA’s 

determination and that the Authority 

will mark and/or light the turbine in 

accordance with FAA requirements. 

Based on the technical evaluation of 

the Authority’s waiver request and 

supporting documentation conducted 

by EPA’s national contractor, the 

Authority’s claim that no domestic 

manufacturer can produce and site a 1.5 

MW wind turbine generator that meets 

the project specifications is supported 

by the available evidence. In addition, 

the evaluation of the supporting 

documentation indicates that at least 

one foreign manufacturer, Leitner-Poma, 

will provide a 1.5 MW wind turbine 

generator at the site that can meet 

project design and performance 

specifications. 

The purpose of the ARRA is to 

stimulate economic recovery in part by 

funding current infrastructure 

construction, not to delay projects that 

are already ‘‘shovel ready’’ by requiring 

entities, such as the Authority, to revise 

their design standards and 

specifications and potentially choose a 

more costly, less efficient project. The 

imposition of ARRA Buy American 

requirements on such projects otherwise 

eligible for State Revolving Fund 

assistance would result in unreasonable 

delay and potentially the cancellation of 

this project as sited. The delay or 

cancellation of this construction would 

directly conflict with the fundamental 

economic purpose of ARRA, which is to 

create or retain jobs. 

The April 28, 2009, EPA Headquarters 

Memorandum, ‘‘Implementation of Buy 

American provisions of Public Law 

111–5, the ‘American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009’ ’’ 

(Memorandum), defines: reasonably 

available quantity as ‘‘the quantity of 

iron, steel, or the relevant manufactured 

good is available or will be available at 

the time needed and place needed, and 

in the proper form or specification as 

specified in the project plans and 

design,’’ and satisfactory quality as ‘‘the 

quality of iron, steel, or the relevant 

manufactured good as specified in the 

project plans and designs.’’ 

The Region 2 State Revolving Fund 

Program Team has reviewed this waiver 

request and has determined that the 

supporting documentation provided by 

the Authority establishes both a proper 

basis to specify the particular good 

required and that the manufactured 

good is not available from a producer in 

the United States to meet the design 

specifications for the proposed project. 

The information provided is sufficient 

to meet the criteria listed under Section 

1605(b) of ARRA, OMB regulations at 

2 CFR 176.60–176.170, and in the EPA 

Headquarters April 28, 2009 

Memorandum: Iron, steel, and the 

manufactured goods are not produced in 

the United States in sufficient and 

reasonably available quantities and of a 

satisfactory quality. The basis for this 

project waiver is the authorization 

provided in Section 1605(b)(2). Due to 

the lack of production of this product in 

the United States in sufficient and 

reasonably available quantities and of a 

satisfactory quality in order to meet the 

Authority’s technical specifications, a 

waiver from the Buy American 

requirement is justified. 

The Administrator’s March 31, 2009, 

Delegation of Authority Memorandum 

provided Regional Administrators with 

the authority to issue exceptions to 

Section 1605 of ARRA within the 

geographic boundaries of their 

respective regions and with respect to 

requests by individual grant recipients. 

Having established both a proper basis 

to specify the particular good required 

for this project, and that this 

manufactured good was not available 

from a producer in the United States, 

the Authority is hereby granted a waiver 

from the Buy American requirements of 

Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5 for 

the purchase of a Leitner-Poma 

Leitwind LTW 77 1.5 MW wind turbine 

generator, as specified in its December 

15, 2010 waiver request. This 

supplementary information constitutes 

the detailed written justification 

required by Section 1605(c) for waivers 

‘‘based on a finding under subsection 

(b).’’ 

Authority: Pub. L. 111–5, Section 1605. 

Dated: March 10, 2011. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8018 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[CG Docket No. 11–41; FCC 11–30] 

Improving Communications Services 

for Native Nations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on a wide 

range of issues concerning how its rules 

and policies could be modified to 

provide greater economic, market entry, 

communication adoption opportunities, 

and incentives for Native Nations. The 

Commission also seeks government-togovernment consultation with Native 

Nations, input from inter-Tribal 

government associations and Native 

representative organizations, and input 

from the public on the best ways to 

move forward. The Commission is 

committed to ensuring that all 

Americans have access to emerging 

services and technologies, with Native 

Nations being at the forefront of the 

Commission’s efforts. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

May 20, 2011, and reply comments due 

on or before July 5, 2011. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by [CG Docket No. 11–41 and/ 

or FCC 11–30], by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments. For 

ECFS filers, in completing the 

transmittal screen, filers should include 

their full name, U.S. Postal Service 

mailing address, and the applicable 

docket or rulemaking number, which in 

this instance is CG Docket No. 11–41. 

• Parties may also submit an 

electronic comment by Internet e-mail. 

To get filing instructions, filers should 

send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and 

include the following words in the body 

of the message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail 

address>.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street, SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service firstclass, Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

In addition, parties must serve one 

copy of each pleading with the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, or via email to 

fcc@bcpiweb.com. Parties must also 

send a courtesy copy of their filing to 

Rod Flowers, Office of Native Affairs 

and Policy, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room 4–C487, Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Bryant, Office of Native Affairs 

and Policy at (202) 418–8164 (voice), 

(202) 418–0431 (TTY), or e-mail at 

Cynthia.Bryant@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Improving Communications Services to 

Native Nations, Notice of Inquiry 

(Native Nations NOI), document FCC 

11–30, adopted on March 3, 2011, and 

released on March 4, 2011, in CG Docket 

No. 11–41. 

The full text of document FCC 11–30 

and copies of any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying via ECFS, and during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. They may also 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone: (800) 378–3160, fax: 

(202) 488–5563, or Internet: http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 11– 

30 can also be downloaded in Word or 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at: 

http://www.fcc.gov or http:// 

www.fcc.gov/indians. 

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, 

interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated in the DATES section of 

this document. Comments and reply 

comments must include a short and 

concise summary of the substantive 

discussion and questions raised in the 

document FCC 11–30. The Commission 

further directs all interested parties to 

include the name of the filing party and 

the date of the filing on each page of 

their comments and reply comments. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

that parties track the organization set 

forth in document FCC 11–30 in order 

to facilitate its internal review process. 

Comments and reply comments must 

otherwise comply with 47 CFR 1.48 and 

all other applicable sections of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq., this 

matter shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance with 

the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentation and 

not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other rules pertaining to oral 

and written presentations are set forth 

in 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

The Native Nations NOI seeks 

consultation and comment on 11 

specific categories of communications 

issues affecting Native Nations and 

Americans living on Tribal lands—the 

lands of federally recognized American 

Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 

Villages—as well as Hawaiian Home 

Lands. The first five sections of the 

document seek comment on issues that 

cut broadly across the many different 

substantive areas within the 

Commission’s regulatory mission. With 

a better understanding of these critical 

issues, the Commission can more 

effectively work with Native Nations to 

break down barriers and find genuine 

solutions. For example, the NOI seeks 

comment on whether a Native Nations 

priority, analogous to the one presently 

found in the Commission’s rules for 

radio broadcast licensing, should be 

adopted more broadly to make it easier 

for Native Nations to provide other 

communications services to their own 

communities. 

The Native Nations NOI also seeks 

comment on the basic tools that Native 

Nations need in order to build 

sustainable business and deployment 

models to address the significant 

communications infrastructure needs, 

market challenges, and demand 

aggregation requirements specific to 

Tribal lands. Further, recognizing the 

uniqueness of Tribal lands, the 

document seeks comment on the 

challenges and barriers faced by Native 

Nations in achieving broadband 

adoption and utilization. The Native 

Nations NOI also seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should adopt 

a single definition of Tribal lands for all 

communications-related regulation and, 

if so, precisely what that definition 

should encompass. The other issues on 

which the Native Nations NOI seeks 

comment delve into specific substantive 

areas of the Commission’s existing rules. 

For example, the Native Nations NOI 

seeks comment on the Universal Service 

Fund’s eligible telecommunications 

carrier (ETC) designation process on 

Tribal lands, including the nature and 

extent of those designations and 

requirements for the consultative 

process with Native Nations. The Native 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 18761 

1http://www.worldwide-logistics.cn/en/ 

ourservice.aspx?id=8. 

2As relevant herein, these contracts include, but 

are not limited to: Evergreen S/C # SC325398, # 

SC34303, and # SC37000; Hanjin S/C # AEF24208; 

K Line S/C # 41033; Maersk S/C # 275214; NYK S/ 

C # SC0109828, # SC0114261, and # SC0114580; 

and OOCL S/C # PE084981. 

Nations NOI also examines public safety 

and interoperability challenges on 

Tribal lands, including the widespread 

lack of 911 and E–911 services. 

The Native Nations NOI also seeks 

comment on how to improve the 

Commission’s processes and Best 

Practices—pursuant to Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act— 

for the protection of Native sacred sites 

and consultation with Native Nations 

and Native Hawaiian Organizations in 

the review of communications tower 

sitings. In addition, the Native Nations 

NOI seeks comment on ways to make 

satellite-based services available for 

Native Nations, by addressing issues of 

cost, equipment, and market-entry 

points for Native Nations. 

The Native Nations NOI seeks 

comment on the extent to which 

persons with disabilities living on 

Tribal lands experience barriers in using 

communications services and advanced 

technologies, and asks how the 

Commission can address those barriers. 

The Native Nations NOI also asks how 

the Commission can best structure a 

productive and efficient nation-tonation consultation process unique to 

the mission of the Commission and the 

needs of Native Nations, recognizing 

that many consultations with the 

Federal government are occurring on 

many different and inter-related issues 

at any given time. 

Finally, recognizing that the Native 

Nations NOI may not cover all of the 

communications challenges facing 

Native Nations and their communities, 

the document invites comment on other 

matters involved in the provision of 

communications services to Native 

communities that may warrant future 

Commission action. 

Ordering Clauses 

Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 

7(a), 11, 214, 225, 254, 255, 301, 303(c), 

303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), 308, 332, 

403, 706, and 716 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

154(j), 157(a), 161, 214, 225, 254, 255, 

301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), 

308, 332, 404, 706, and 716, and section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f, 

document FCC 11–30 is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Bulah P. Wheeler, 

Deputy Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7961 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 11–04] 

Worldwide Logistics Co., Ltd.; 

Possible Violations of Sections 10(a)(1) 

and 10(b)(2) of the Shipping Act of 

1984; Order of Investigation and 

Hearing 

Worldwide Logistics Co., Ltd. 

(Worldwide) is a company based in the 

People’s Republic of China, providing 

service as a non-vessel-operating 

common carrier (NVOCC). Worldwide 

registered with the FMC as a foreignbased NVOCC in September 2004. 

Worldwide’s reported address is 14F– 

16F Junjiang International Tower, No. 

228 Ning Guo Road, Yangpu District, 

Shanghai, PRC 200090. It is a part of the 

Worldwide Logistics Group, said to be 

one of the leading integrated logistics 

service providers in China.1

Worldwide currently holds itself out 

as an NVOCC pursuant to its automated 

tariff No. 019194–001. Its tariff is 

maintained by Distribution 

Publications, Inc., and is published 

electronically at https:// 

www.dpiusa.com. Worldwide currently 

maintains an NVOCC bond with 

Navigators Insurance Company, 6 

International Drive, Rye Brook, NY 

10573. 

It appears that Worldwide originated 

and substantially participated in an 

ongoing practice of misdescribing cargo 

to the transporting ocean common 

carrier since at least April 2008. With 

respect to those shipments apparently 

misdescribed, Worldwide was identified 

as the shipper signatory to various 

service contracts with ocean common 

carriers 2 and as the person for whose 

account the transportation was being 

provided. Contemporaneous 

documentation such as the commercial 

invoice or the NVOCC house bill of 

lading reflect that shipments declared to 

the vessel operator as ‘‘fabric’’ or ‘‘cotton 

fabric’’ actually were loaded with 

garments or with other miscellaneous 

finished textile goods. Due to the 

difference between the rate Worldwide 

paid to ship the misdescribed goods and 

the rate at which the cargo should have 

moved under the various service 

contracts used by Worldwide, it appears 

that Worldwide obtained lower than 

applicable rates for these shipments, in 

violation of section 10(a)(1) of the 

Shipping Act. 

It also appears that for these same 

shipments, Worldwide acted as a 

common carrier in relation to its 

NVOCC customers and issued its own 

NVOCC bill of lading. Worldwide has 

maintained an electronic tariff since 

September 17, 2004. However, as 

indicated by Worldwide’s debit notes, 

the rate assessed by Worldwide to its 

NVOCC customers appears to differ 

substantially from its published rates. 

Accordingly, it appears that Worldwide 

provided service that was not in 

accordance with its published tariff, in 

violation of 10(b)(2) of the Shipping Act. 

Now therefore, it is ordered, That 

pursuant to sections 10, 11, and 13 of 

the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102, 

41104, and 41107–41109, an 

investigation is instituted to determine: 

(1) whether Worldwide Logistics Co., 

Ltd. violated section 10(a)(1) of the 

Shipping Act by obtaining 

transportation at less than the rates and 

charges otherwise applicable by an 

unjust or unfair device or means; 

(2) whether Worldwide Logistics Co., 

Ltd. violated section 10(b)(2) of the 

Shipping Act by providing service other 

than at the rates, charges, and 

classifications set forth in its published 

NVOCC tariff or applicable NSA; 

(3) whether, in the event violations of 

sections 10(a)(1) or 10(b)(2) of the 

Shipping Act are found, civil penalties 

should be assessed against Worldwide 

Logistics Co., Ltd. and, if so, the amount 

of penalties to be assessed; 

(4) whether, in the event violations of 

sections 10(a)(1) or 10(b)(2) of the 

Shipping Act are found, the tariff(s) of 

Worldwide Logistics Co., Ltd. should be 

suspended; and 

(5) whether, in the event violations 

are found, an appropriate cease and 

desist order should be issued. 

It is further ordered, That a public 

hearing be held in this proceeding and 

that this matter be assigned for hearing 

before an Administrative Law Judge of 

the Commission’s Office of 

Administrative Law Judges at a date and 

place to be hereafter determined by the 

Administrative Law Judge in 

compliance with Rule 61 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 46 CFR 502.61. The hearing 

shall include oral testimony and crossexamination in the discretion of the 

presiding Administrative Law Judge 

only after consideration has been given 

by the parties and the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge to the use of 

alternative forms of dispute resolution, 

and upon a proper showing that there 

are genuine issues of material fact that 

cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES