9208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 39 / Monday, March 1, 2010 / Notices 

SQF–2 solar powered submersible 

pump system with control and solar 

panels (pump system) manufactured in 

Denmark by GrundFos. The head of 

each federal agency is authorized to 

issue project waivers pursuant to 

Section 1605(c) of ARRA. 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(c), a waiver may be provided if 

EPA 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. A Delegation of Authority 

Memorandum was issued by the EPA 

Administrator on March 31, 2009 which 

provided EPA Regional Administrators 

with the authority to issue waivers to 

Section 1605(a) of ARRA within the 

geographic boundaries of their 

respective regions and with respect to 

requests by individual recipients of 

ARRA financial assistance. 

The MRCD implements projects 

within the Tomales Bay and Stemple 

Creek Watersheds to stop soil erosion, 

improve riparian habitat, and stabilize 

eroding stream channels on agricultural 

lands. The MRCD is installing the pump 

system to redevelop a brick well in 

order to provide replacement water for 

livestock which have been kept from 

natural water supplies, due to efforts to 

fence off a creek for streamside and 

riparian restoration, which restoration 

will also reduce non-point source 

pollution. This project is intended to 

further the purposes of the San 

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality 

Control Board (SFBRWQCB) plan to 

facilitate land (grazing) management by 

providing water and water outlets. This 

will permit the landowner to practice 

rotational grazing and avoid depleting 

the integrity of the land with intense 

grazing. 

The MRCD’s specifications require the 

pump system to deliver 920 gallons per 

day (GPD) against a total dynamic head 

(TDH) of 160 feet. The MRCD stated in 

their waiver submission that the closest 

equivalent domestically-manufactured 

pump systems do not meet these project 

specifications. Initial analysis by EPA’s 

national contractor indicated that there 

was one domestic manufacturer that 

might be able to meet the project 

specifications, but observed that 

additional information clarifying the 

project’s winter month flow 

requirements was necessary to 

determine whether this domestic 

manufacturer could meet all necessary 

project specifications. 

Additional information provided by 

the MRCD specified that the system 

must also have a pumping capacity of 

1400 GPD at 160 feet of TDH during the 

winter. Further analysis by EPA and 

EPA’s national contractor confirmed 

that domestic models capable of 

meeting the pumping capacity and TDH 

specifications in winter months would 

require an additional fuel source. The 

method to generate this power would 

require the use of the emergency 

generator system. Using the emergency 

system defeats the purpose of having a 

backup source, and leaves the project 

site vulnerable to failure. Moreover, as 

the back-up source of power supply 

would need to be in operation for nearly 

the same amount of time that the solar 

powered equipment would be in 

operation, this reliance on the 

emergency system compromises the 

environmental significance achieved by 

having a solar powered pump system. 

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 MRCD’s submission 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 the relevant 

manufactured goods are not produced in 

the United States in sufficient and 

reasonably available quantity and of a 

satisfactory quality to meet its technical 

specifications. The MRCD 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 pump systems 

manufactured in the United States that 

have equivalent product specifications. 

The MRCD has also provided 

certification from its supplier indicating 

there are no systems of comparable 

quality available from a domestic 

manufacturer to meet its specifications. 

Based on additional research conducted 

by the EPA’s Buy American consultant, 

there do not appear to be other pump 

systems available to meet the MRCD’s 

specifications. 

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 

MRCD, 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. 

The EPA Region 9 Infrastructure 

Office, 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 MRCD 

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 MRCD is hereby granted a waiver 

from the Buy American requirements of 

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

for the purchase of the GrundFos pump 

system, specified in the MRCD’s request 

of September 23, 2009. 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: December 14, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4075 Filed 2–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9119–8] 

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air 

Act Citizen Suit 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent 

decree; request for public comment. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 39 / Monday, March 1, 2010 / Notices 9209 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(‘‘CAA’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is 

hereby given of a proposed consent 

decree to address a lawsuit filed by 

Environmental Integrity Project, 

Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper, Inc., 

Clean Water Action, and Chesapeake 

Climate Action Network (collectively 

‘‘Plaintiffs’’) in the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia: 

Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. 

Jackson, No. 1:10-cv-165 (RJL) (D.D.C.). 

Plaintiffs filed a deadline suit to compel 

the Administrator to respond to an 

administrative petition seeking EPA’s 

objection to a CAA Title V operating 

permit issued by the Maryland 

Department of the Environment to 

Wheelabrator Baltimore, LP 

(‘‘Wheelabrator’’) for a municipal solid 

waste incinerator in Baltimore, 

Maryland. Under the terms of the 

proposed consent decree, EPA has 

agreed to respond to the petition by 

April 15, 2010. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed consent decree must be 

received by March 31, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2010–0184, online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by e-mail to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD– 

ROM should be formatted in Word or 

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and may be mailed to the mailing 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leslie Darman, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2355A), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564–5452; 

fax number (202) 564–5477; e-mail 

address: darman.leslie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Consent Decree 

This proposed consent decree would 

resolve a lawsuit alleging that the 

Administrator failed to perform a 

nondiscretionary duty to grant or deny, 

within 60 days of submission, an 

administrative petition to object to a 

CAA Title V permit issued by the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment to Wheelabrator for a 

municipal solid waste incinerator in 

Baltimore, Maryland. Under the terms of 

the proposed consent decree, EPA has 

agreed to respond to the petition by 

April 15, 2010. In addition, the 

proposed consent decree states that 

within fifteen (15) business days EPA 

shall transmit notice of such action to 

the Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

consent decree from persons who were 

not named as parties or intervenors to 

the litigation in question. EPA or the 

Department of Justice may withdraw or 

withhold consent to the proposed 

consent decree if the comments disclose 

facts or considerations that indicate that 

such consent is inappropriate, 

improper, inadequate, or inconsistent 

with the requirements of the Act. Unless 

EPA or the Department of Justice 

determines that consent to this consent 

decree should be withdrawn, the terms 

of the decree will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed Consent 

Decree 

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Consent 

Decree? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OGC–2010–0184) contains a 

copy of the proposed consent decree. 

The official public docket is available 

for public viewing at the Office of 

Environmental Information (OEI) Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OEI 

Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may use the 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit or 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the 

appropriate docket identification 

number. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, CBI, or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not included in the official public 

docket or in the electronic public 

docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted 

material, including copyrighted material 

contained in a public comment, will not 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

You may submit comments as 

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an e-mail 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD ROM you submit. This 

ensures that you can be identified as the 

submitter of the comment and allows 

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical 

difficulties or needs further information 

on the substance of your comment. Any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Use of the http://www.regulations.gov 

Web site to submit comments to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving comments. The electronic 

public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity, e-mail address, 

or other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

In contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s electronic mail (e-mail) 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

9210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 39 / Monday, March 1, 2010 / Notices 

system. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to the Docket without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address is automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Dated: February 22, 2010. 

Richard B. Ossias, 

Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4156 Filed 2–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Public Information 

Collection(s) Approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget 

February 22, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission has received Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for the following public 

information collection(s) pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number, 

and no person is required to respond to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Comments concerning the 

accuracy of the burden estimate(s) and 

any suggestions for reducing the burden 

should be directed to the person listed 

in the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Stelzig on (202) 418–0942 or e-mail at 

Tim.Stelzig@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1131. 

OMB Approval Date: 12/03/2009. 

Expiration Date: 12/31/2012. 

Title: Implementation of the NET 911 

Improvement ACT of 2008: Location 

Information from Owners and 

Controllers of 911 and E911 

Capabilities. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 60 

responses; 0.0833 hours (5 minutes) 

hours per response; 5 hours total per 

year. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in the New and Emerging 

Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 

2008 (NET 911 Act), Public Law 110– 

283, Stat. 2620 (2008) (to be codified at 

47 CFR Section 615a–1), and section 

222 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

To implement section 222 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, the Commission’s rules 

impose a general duty on carriers to 

protect the privacy of customer 

proprietary network information and 

carrier proprietary information from 

unauthorized disclosure. See 47 CFR 

64.2001 et seq. In the Order, the 

Commission additionally has clarified 

that the Commission’s rules 

contemplate that incumbent LECs and 

other owners or controllers of 911 or 

E911 infrastructure will acquire 

information regarding interconnected 

VoIP providers and their customers for 

use in the provision of emergency 

services. We fully expect that these 

entities will use the information only for 

the provision of E911 services. To be 

clear, no entity may use customer 

information obtained as a result of the 

provision of 911 or E911 services for 

marketing purposes. 

Needs and Uses: In a Report and 

Order, FCC 08–249, WC Docket No. 08– 

171, the FCC requires an owner or 

controller of a 911 or enhanced 911 

(E911) capability to make that capability 

available to a requesting interconnected 

Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 

provider in certain circumstances. This 

requirement involves the collection and 

disclosure to emergency services 

personnel of customers’ location 

information. In a previous action, the 

Commission required interconnected 

VoIP providers to collect certain 

location information from their 

customers and disclose it to the entities 

that owner or control an Automatic 

Location Information (ALI) database. 

That OMB-approved requirement is 

under OMB Control Number 3060–1085. 

All the relevant costs of the entities that 

own or control an ALI database were 

previously described in 3060–1085. The 

Commission has calculated the 

paperwork burdens of this present item 

in such a way as to prevent double 

counting for OMB’s inventory. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4068 Filed 2–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 6712–01–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[RM No. 11592; DA 10–278] 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Seeks Comment on Petition for 

Rulemaking Regarding 700 MHz Band 

Mobile Equipment Design and 

Procurement Practices 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau seeks 

comment on a petition for rulemaking 

asking the Commission to require that 

all mobile units be capable of operating 

over all frequencies in the 700 MHz 

Band. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before March 31, 2010, 

and reply comments on or before 

April 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed 

using (1) the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 

Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• 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. 

• Effective December 28, 2009, all 

hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 

paper filings for the Commission’s 

Secretary must be delivered to FCC 

Headquarters at 445 12th St., 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 first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES