2684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

standard air relief structure, all valves 

that do not meet this standard would 

need to be replaced. 

Use of alternative valves that do not 

meet the IEUA’s specifications would 

thus require a substantial redesign of, 

delay in, and higher costs for the 

project. Because of the IEUA’s current, 

extensive installations of ARI valves, the 

use of alternative, incompatible valves 

would impose continuing high costs 

into the future to change spare parts and 

staff training in operations and 

maintenance, as well as in inferior 

performance of the alternative valves. 

Procurement of alternative valves would 

be inconsistent with basic principles of 

sustainable infrastructure and effective 

asset management that EPA has 

consistently promoted. For all these 

reasons, EPA finds that the IEUA’s 

specifications for these ARV valves were 

justified. 

EPA also conducted research to find 

potential domestic manufacturers who 

can supply ARV valves that meet 

IEUA’s technical specifications. Five 

domestic manufacturers of ARV valves 

were identified by the applicant. EPA’s 

national contractor contacted the 

domestic manufacturers and inquired as 

to whether their products could meet 

the IEUA’s specifications. All five 

manufacturers indicated that they could 

provide similar products, but could not 

meet all of the IEUA’s specifications, 

particularly with regard to 

manufacturing materials and product 

design. 

Based on these findings, EPA 

concludes the IEUA’s claim that there 

are no known American manufacturers 

of ARV valves meeting the IEUA’s 

specifications is supported by the 

available information. 

The April 28, 2009 EPA 

Memorandum for implementation of the 

ARRA Buy American provisions of P.L. 

111–5, states the quantity of iron, steel, 

or relevant manufactured good is 

‘‘reasonably available’’ if it is available at 

the time and place needed, and in the 

proper form or specification as specified 

in the project plans and design. The 

IEUA’s waiver request articulates a 

reasonable and appropriate basis for 

choosing the type of technology it chose 

for this project in environmental 

objectives and performance 

specifications. Further, it provides 

sufficient documentation to conclude 

the relevant manufactured goods are not 

produced in the United States of a 

satisfactory quality to meet its technical 

specifications. The IEUA has 

incorporated specific technical design 

specifications for the proposed project 

based on their needs and provided 

information to the EPA indicating there 

are currently no ARV valves 

manufactured in the United States that 

have equivalent product specifications. 

The IEUA has also provided 

certification indicating there are no 

systems of comparable quality available 

from a domestic manufacturer to meet 

its specifications. Based on additional 

inquiry by EPA’s national contractor, 

there do not appear to be other ARV 

valves available to meet the IEUA’s 

specifications. 

EPA has also evaluated IEUA’s 

request to determine if its submission is 

considered late or if it could be 

considered timely, as per the OMB 

Guidance at 2 CFR 176.120. EPA will 

generally regard waiver requests with 

respect to components that were 

specified in the bid solicitation or in a 

general/primary construction contract as 

‘‘late’’ if submitted after the contract 

date. However, EPA could also 

determine that a request be evaluated as 

timely, though made after the date that 

the contract was signed, if the need for 

a waiver was not reasonably foreseeable. 

If the need for a waiver is reasonably 

foreseeable, then EPA could still apply 

discretion in these late cases as per the 

OMB Guidance, which says ‘‘the award 

official may deny the request.’’ For those 

waiver requests that do not have a 

reasonably unforeseeable basis for 

lateness, but for which the waiver basis 

is valid and there is no apparent gain by 

the ARRA recipient or loss on behalf of 

the government, then EPA will still 

consider granting a waiver. 

In this case, there are no U.S. 

manufacturers that meet IEUA’s project 

specification for these ARV valves. The 

waiver request was submitted after the 

contract date due to a realignment of a 

portion of the project which was 

discovered in April, 2010. This 

realignment led to a project redesign 

which wasn’t completed until May 26, 

2010, thus leading to the waiver request 

on July 15, 2010. Although it was 

known that ARV valves would be 

needed for this project, it was unknown 

how many would be needed and the 

associated cost until after the 

realignment. There is no indication that 

IEUA failed to request a waiver in order 

to avoid the requirements of the ARRA, 

particularly since there are no 

domestically manufactured products 

available that meet the project 

specifications. EPA will consider 

IEUA’s waiver request, a foreseeable late 

request, as though it had been timely 

made since there is no gain by IEUA and 

no loss to the government due to the late 

request. 

Furthermore, the purpose of the 

ARRA is to stimulate economic recovery 

by funding current infrastructure 

construction, not to delay shovel ready 

projects by requiring entities, like the 

IEUA, to revise their design and 

potentially choose a more costly and 

less efficient project. The imposition of 

ARRA Buy American requirements on 

such projects eligible for CWSRF 

assistance would result in unreasonable 

delay and thus displace the ‘‘shovel 

ready’’ status for this project. Further 

delay of this project would contravene 

the most fundamental economic 

purposes of the ARRA: To create or 

preserve jobs in the United States. 

The EPA Region 9 Water Division, 

Office of Regional Counsel, EPA’s Buy 

American consultant, and EPA’s Office 

of Administration and Resource 

Management have reviewed this waiver 

request and have determined the 

supporting documentation provided by 

the IEUA is sufficient to meet the 

criteria listed under ARRA Section 

1605(b) (2) and the EPA April 28, 2009, 

memorandum for implementation of 

ARRA Buy American provisions of 

Public Law 111–5. 

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 IEUA is hereby granted a waiver 

from the Buy American requirements of 

Sections 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5, 

for the purchase of the A.R.I. valves, 

specified in the IEUA’s request of July 

21, 2010. This supplementary 

information constitutes the detailed 

written justification required by Section 

1605(c) for waivers based on a finding 

under Section 1605(b)(2). 

Authority: Public Law 111–5, Section 

1605. 

Dated: November 30, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Pacific 

Southwest, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2011–754 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9252–8] 

Notice of a Project Waiver of Section 

1605 (Buy American Requirement) of 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to 

the Lake County Special Districts 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is hereby granting a 

project waiver of the Buy American 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2685 

requirements of ARRA Section 1605(a) 

under the authority of Section 

1605(b)(2) (manufactured goods are not 

produced in the United States in 

sufficient and reasonably available 

quantities and of a satisfactory quality) 

to the Lake County Special Districts 

(Lake County), California for the 

Kelseyville Wastewater Treatment Plant 

project. Lake County indicates that the 

design for the Kelseyville project 

(Project #4593–110 funded by the 

California Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund (CWSRF) ARRA Loan #08–821) 

requires check valves capable of 

performing under high pressure at a 

wastewater effluent pump station. Lake 

County is receiving this waiver to 

purchase Noreva V625 non-slam check 

valves for this purpose. This waiver 

applies only to this project. Other ARRA 

projects that wish to use the same 

product must apply for a separate 

waiver based on their project-specific 

circumstances. The Assistant 

Administrator of the Office of 

Administration and Resources 

Management has concurred with this 

decision to make an exception under 

section 1605(b)(2) of ARRA. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 30, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abimbola Odusoga, Environmental 

Engineer, U.S. EPA Region 9, Water 

Division (WTR–4), (415) 972–3437. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with ARRA Sections 1605(c) 

and 1605(b)(2), EPA hereby provides 

notice it is granting a project waiver of 

the requirements of Section 1605(a) of 

Public Law 111–5, Buy American 

requirements, to Lake County for the 

acquisition of V625 non-slam check 

valves by foreign manufacturer, Noreva. 

Section 1605(a) of the ARRA requires 

that none of the funds appropriated or 

otherwise made available by the ARRA 

may be used for the construction, 

alteration, maintenance, or repair of a 

public building or public work unless 

all of the iron, steel, and manufactured 

goods used in the project are produced 

in the United States. Pursuant to Section 

1605(b), the head of each federal agency 

is authorized to issue a waiver from the 

requirements of Section 1605(a) for a 

specific project (project waiver) 

provided the agency determines: (1) 

Applying these requirements would be 

inconsistent with the public interest; (2) 

iron, steel, and the relevant 

manufactured goods are not produced in 

the United States in sufficient and 

reasonably available quantities and of a 

satisfactory quality; or (3) inclusion of 

iron, steel, and the relevant 

manufactured goods produced in the 

United States will increase the cost of 

the overall project by more than 25 

percent. 

The EPA Administrator signed a 

memorandum, dated March 31, 2009, 

delegating authority to Regional 

Administrators to issue project waivers 

within the geographic boundaries of 

their respective regions and with respect 

to requests by individual recipients of 

ARRA financial assistance. 

The Kelseyville wastewater treatment 

project will enhance the reliability of 

the wastewater treatment process to 

better serve the Kelseyville community, 

which has been classified as a 

disadvantaged community. According to 

the applicant, the valves will be 

installed on a 15,000 foot, 6-inch 

effluent line under high pressure (515 

feet of static head). Check valve failure 

could result in thousands of gallons of 

backflow at high velocities causing 

flooding in the pump station, 

overflowing and spilling of effluent. As 

the project site is located in a remote 

location, an operator will not be present 

at all times, thus increasing the need for 

high quality, reliable check valves. 

According to Lake County, they require 

a product without external adjustments 

or devices such as levers, weights, 

springs, shock absorbers, or speed 

controls. The absence of these features 

reduces concerns of accidental operator 

error or vandalism in the remote 

location. 

The applicant included the following 

specifications in its contract documents: 

• Type V625 non-slam check valves; 

• Axial-flow, quick-closing, non-slam 

design, spring-loaded annular or 

circular and hardened metal-to-metal 

seat; 

• ANSI Class 300, wafer body to fit 

between ANSI B16.5 flanges, rated 

working pressure 720 psig at 100 

degrees F; 

• Cast CF8M stainless steel body and 

disc, type 316 stainless steel trim; 

• Maximum pressure loss of 1 psi at 

900 gpm; and 

• Valves to be used in combination 

with a hydropneumatic surge tank. 

Upon review, two manufacturers 

appeared to have products that met 

most of the project specification 

requirements. One of these 

manufacturers was contacted by Lake 

County and provided a written 

statement indicating that the use of the 

hydropneumatic surge tank would 

preclude the use of their valves in this 

installation. The second manufacturer 

was contacted by the review team. The 

second manufacturer failed to meet the 

project specification requirements for 

the following reasons: 

• The specification lists a maximum 

pressure loss of 1 psi at 900 gpm, 

whereas the head loss on the domestic 

valves is 3 psi; and 

• The specification lists a hardened 

metal-to-metal seat. The domestic 

products were unable to fulfill this 

requirement. 

Based on these findings, EPA concurs 

with Lake County’s claim that no known 

domestic manufacturers of V625 nonslam check valves are available to 

satisfy Lake County’s specifications. 

The April 28, 2009, EPA 

memorandum for implementation of the 

ARRA Buy American provisions of 

Public Law 111–5 states the quantity of 

iron, steel, or relevant manufactured 

good is ‘‘reasonably available’’ if it is 

available at the time and place needed, 

and in the proper form or specification 

as specified in the project plans and 

design. Lake County’s waiver request 

articulates a reasonable and appropriate 

basis for selecting the type of technology 

it chose for this project in 

environmental objectives and 

performance specifications. Further, it 

provides sufficient documentation to 

conclude the relevant manufactured 

goods are not produced in the United 

States of a satisfactory quality to meet 

its technical specifications. Lake County 

has incorporated specific technical 

design specifications for the proposed 

project based on their needs and has 

provided information to the EPA 

indicating there are currently no V625 

non-slam check valves manufactured in 

the United States that have equivalent 

product specifications. Based on inquiry 

by EPA’s national contractor, there do 

not appear to be other V625 non-slam 

check valves available to meet Lake 

County’s specifications. 

EPA has also evaluated Lake County’s 

request to determine if its submission is 

considered late or if it could be 

considered timely, as per the OMB 

Guidance at 2 CFR 176.120. EPA will 

generally regard waiver requests with 

respect to components that were 

specified in the bid solicitation or in a 

general/primary construction contract as 

‘‘late’’ if submitted after the contract 

date. However, EPA could also 

determine that a request be evaluated as 

timely, though made after the date that 

the contract was signed, if the need for 

a waiver was not reasonably foreseeable. 

If the need for a waiver is reasonably 

foreseeable, then EPA could still apply 

discretion in these late cases as per the 

OMB Guidance, which says ‘‘the award 

official may deny the request.’’ For those 

waiver requests that do not have a 

reasonably unforeseeable basis for 

lateness, but for which the waiver basis 

is valid and there is no apparent gain by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

the ARRA recipient or loss on behalf of 

the government, then EPA will still 

consider granting a waiver. 

In this case, there are no U.S. 

manufacturers that meet Lake County’s 

project specification for these check 

valves capable of performing under high 

pressure. Due to a delay in the 

construction of this project, Lake 

County was not made aware that there 

are no domestic equivalents for the 

valves in question until well after the 

contract was signed. There is no 

indication that Lake County failed to 

request a waiver in order to avoid the 

requirements of the ARRA, particularly 

since there are no domestically 

manufactured products available that 

meet the project specifications. EPA will 

consider Lake County’s waiver request, 

a foreseeable late request, as though it 

had been timely made since there is no 

gain by Lake County and no loss by the 

government due to the late request. 

Furthermore, the purpose of the 

ARRA is to stimulate economic recovery 

by funding current infrastructure 

construction, not to delay shovel ready 

projects by requiring entities, like Lake 

County, to revise their design and 

potentially choose a more costly and 

less efficient project. The imposition of 

ARRA Buy American requirements on 

such projects eligible for CWSRF 

assistance would result in unreasonable 

delay and thus displace the ‘‘shovel 

ready’’ status for this project. Further 

delay of this project would contravene 

the most fundamental economic 

purposes of the ARRA: To create or 

preserve jobs in the United States. 

EPA Region 9’s Water Division and 

Office of Regional Counsel, EPA’s Buy 

American consultant, and EPA’s Office 

of Administration and Resource 

Management have reviewed this waiver 

request and have determined the 

supporting documentation provided by 

Lake County is sufficient to meet the 

criteria listed under ARRA Section 

1605(b)(2) and the EPA April 28, 2009, 

memorandum for implementation of 

ARRA Buy American provisions of 

Public Law 111–5. 

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, 

Lake County is hereby granted a waiver 

from the Buy American requirements of 

Sections 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5, 

for the purchase of Noreva V625 nonslam check valves, specified in Lake 

County’s request of June 8, 2010. This 

supplementary information constitutes 

the detailed written justification 

required by Section 1605(c) for waivers 

based on a finding under Section 

1605(b)(2). 

Authority: Public Law 111–5, Section 

1605. 

Dated: November 30, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Pacific 

Southwest, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2011–752 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[DA 10–2320] 

Video Programming and Emergency 

Access Advisory Committee; 

Announcement of Establishment and 

Members; and Announcement of Date 

of First Meeting 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

establishment and appointment of 

members of the Video Programming and 

Emergency Access Advisory Committee 

(‘‘Committee’’ or ‘‘VPEAAC’’) of the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’). This document also 

announces the change of the 

Committee’s popular name to the Video 

Programming Accessibility Advisory 

Committee (‘‘VPAAC’’). The Commission 

further announces the date of the 

Committee’s first meeting. 

DATES: The Committee was established 

on December 7, 2010. The first meeting 

of the Committee will take place on 

Thursday, January 13, 2011, 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m., at Commission Headquarters. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam 

Gregory, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, 202–418–2498 (voice), 

202–418–1169 (TTY), or 

Pam.Gregory@fcc.gov (e-mail); or Alison 

Neplokh, Media Bureau, 202–418–1083, 

Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov (e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 7, 2010, in document DA– 

2320, Chairman Julius Genachowski 

announced the establishment and 

appointment of members of the 

VPEAAC, following a nominations 

period that closed on November 1, 2010. 

This Committee is established in 

accordance with the Twenty-First 

Century Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 

111–260 (‘‘Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act’’ or ‘‘CVAA’’). To avoid 

confusion with the Emergency Access 

Advisory Committee (a second 

committee created under the CVAA), 

the Video Programming and Emergency 

Access Advisory Committee will 

commonly be referred to as the Video 

Programming Accessibility Advisory 

Committee (VPAAC). All meetings of 

the VPAAC shall be open to the public. 

Its purpose is to develop 

recommendations on closed captioning 

of Internet programming previously 

captioned on television; the 

compatibility between video 

programming delivered using Internet 

protocol and devices capable of 

receiving and displaying such 

programming in order to facilitate 

access to captioning, video description 

and emergency information; video 

description and accessible emergency 

information on television programming 

delivered using Internet protocol or 

digital broadcast television; accessible 

user interfaces on video programming 

devices; and accessible programming 

guides and menus. Within six (6) 

months of its first meeting, the VPAAC 

shall submit recommendations 

concerning the provision of closed 

captions for Internet-delivered video 

programming and the ability of video 

devices to pass through closed captions 

contained on Internet-based video 

programming. By April 8, 2012, the 

VPAAC shall submit recommendations 

on the remaining issues listed above. At 

the VPAAC’s first meeting, the 

Committee will be divided into four 

working groups, each of which will be 

assigned specific tasks related to the 

Committee’s purposes. 

The Chairman of the Commission is 

appointing forty-five (45) members of 

the VPAAC. Of this number, ten (10) 

represent interests of persons with 

disabilities; six (6) represent interests of 

closed captioning and video description 

providers; eleven (11) represent device 

manufacturers; four (4) represent 

Internet and software companies; two 

(2) represent broadcasters; and twelve 

(12) represent video programming 

distributors and providers. The 

VPAAC’s membership meets the 

CVAA’s goals of assembling a 

Committee that has the technical 

knowledge and engineering experience 

needed to meet the tasks assigned. All 

appointments are effective immediately 

and shall terminate December 7, 2012, 

or when the Committee is terminated, 

whichever is earlier. 

The membership of the VPAAC, 

designated by organization or affiliation, 

as appropriate, is as follows: 

• Adobe, Inc.—Andrew Kirkpatrick 

• Alliance for Telecommunications 

Industry Solutions—Phyllis Anderson 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES