42170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that these regulations will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because they will affect only Federal 

agencies and employees. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Freedom of Information, 

Government employees, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wages. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

John Berry, 

Director 

■ Accordingly, the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management amends 5 CFR 

part 532 as follows: 

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE 

SYSTEMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 532 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 

also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 

■ 2. Appendix C to subpart B is 

amended by revising the wage area 

listings for the Boise, ID, and Utah wage 

areas to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532— 

Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey 

Areas 

* * * * * 

IDAHO 

Boise 

Survey Area 

Idaho: 

Ada 

Boise 

Canyon 

Elmore 

Gem 

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus: 

Idaho: 

Adams 

Bannock 

Bear Lake 

Bingham 

Blaine 

Bonneville 

Butte 

Camas 

Caribou 

Cassia 

Clark 

Custer 

Fremont 

Gooding 

Jefferson 

Jerome 

Lemhi 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Minidoka 

Oneida 

Owyhee 

Payette 

Power 

Teton 

Twin Falls 

Valley 

Washington 

* * * * * 

UTAH 

Survey Area 

Utah: 

Box Elder 

Davis 

Salt Lake 

Tooele 

Utah 

Weber 

Area of Application. Survey Area Plus 

Utah: 

Beaver 

Cache 

Carbon 

Daggett 

Duchesne 

Emery 

Garfield 

Grand 

Iron 

Juab 

Millard 

Morgan 

Piute 

Rich 

San Juan (Only includes the Canyonlands 

National Park portion.) 

Sanpete 

Sevier 

Summit 

Uintah 

Wasatch 

Washington 

Wayne 

Colorado: 

Mesa 

Moffat 

Idaho: 

Franklin 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–20094 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Credit Corporation 

7 CFR Part 1415 

RIN 0578–AA53 

Grassland Reserve Program; 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation 

(CCC), United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

ACTION: Interim final rule; amendment 

with reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), through the 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), 

published in the Federal Register of 

January 21, 2009, an interim final rule 

with request for comment amending the 

program regulations for the Grassland 

Reserve Program (GRP) to incorporate 

programmatic changes authorized by the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 (2008 Act) using Regulation 

Identification Number (RIN) 0578– 

AA38. This amendment to the January 

21, 2009, interim final rule corrects the 

RIN to read 0578–AA53, clarifies the 

nature of the contingent right of 

enforcement, expands its discussion 

regarding GRP policy for wind and solar 

power facilities, and requests comment 

on how GRP can be used to contribute 

to the Nation’s efforts on energy, climate 

change, and carbon sequestration. 

Additionally, USDA seeks public input 

on the January 21, 2009, interim final 

rule, as amended. Therefore, USDA 

reopens the public comment period 

upon publication of this amendment 

until September 21, 2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: The rule is 

effective August 21, 2009. Comment 

date: Submit comments on or before 

September 21, 2009. In addition, the 

comment period for the GRP interim 

final rule published on January 21, 2009 

(74 FR 2317), is reopened. Comments 

must be received on or before 

September 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

(identified by Docket Number NRCS– 

IFR–09005) using any of the following 

methods: 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: John Glover, Acting Director, 

Easements Programs Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 

Grasslands Reserve Program Comments, 

PO Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013. 

• E-mail: grp2008@wdc.usda.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 720–9689. 

• Hand Delivery: USDA South 

Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Room 6819, Washington, DC 

20250, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. Please ask the guard at the 

entrance to the South Building to call 

(202) 720–4527 in order to be escorted 

into the building. 

• This interim final rule may be 

accessed via Internet. Users can access 

the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) homepage at: http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/; select the Farm 

Bill link from the menu; select the 

Interim Final Rules link from beneath 

the Final and Interim Final Rules Index 

title. Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for 

communication (Braille, large print, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 42171 

audio tape, etc.) should contact the 

USDA Target Center at: (202) 720–2600 

(voice and TDD). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Glover, Acting Director, Easement 

Programs Division, Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6819 

South Building, Washington, DC 20250; 

Phone: (202) 720–1854; Fax: (202) 720– 

9689; or e-mail: grp2008@wdc.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) reviewed the January 21, 2009, 

interim final rule and determined that it 

was a significant regulatory action. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 

USDA conducted a cost-benefit analysis 

of the potential impacts associated with 

the interim final rule for the GRP 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 21, 2009. OMB also determined 

that this amendment is a significant 

regulatory action. USDA evaluated the 

cost-benefit analysis and determined the 

provisions of the amendment do not 

alter the analysis that was originally 

prepared for the January 21, 2009, 

interim final rule. The administrative 

record is available for public inspection 

at the Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

5831 South Building, Washington, DC. 

A copy of the analysis is available upon 

request from John Glover, Acting 

Director, Easement Programs Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Room 

6819 South Building, Washington, DC 

20250–2890 or electronically at: http:// 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/GRP/ 

under the Program Information title. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not 

applicable to this interim final rule 

because USDA is not required by 5 

U.S.C. 553, or by any other provision of 

law, to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking with respect to the subject 

matter of this rule. 

Environmental Analysis 

A programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (EA) has been prepared in 

association with the interim final 

rulemaking published on January 21, 

2009. The provisions of this amendment 

do not alter the assessment that was 

originally prepared. With the exception 

for the analysis on how to address 

windmill and other renewable sources 

of energy, such as solar panel arrays, 

there is nothing in this amendment that 

impacts the program’s purpose, the 

baseline considerations, grassland 

eligibility, or acreage enrollment goals. 

This amendment was developed to 

address the contingent right of 

enforcement and where the energy 

produced from windmills authorized to 

be placed on easement lands can be 

used. Therefore, the analysis has 

determined that there will not be a 

significant impact to the human 

environment and, as a result, an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is not required to be prepared (40 CFR 

part 1508.13). The EA and Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI) are 

available for review and comment as 

specified in the interim final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 21, 2009. However, the 

comment period for accepting 

comments to the EA and FONSI has 

been extended to September 21, 2009. A 

copy of the EA and FONSI may be 

obtained from the following Web site: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ 

Env_Assess. A hard copy may also be 

requested from the following address 

and contact: Matt Harrington, National 

Environmental Coordinator, Ecological 

Sciences Division, Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20250. Comments from the public 

should be specific and reference that 

comments provided are on the EA and 

FONSI. Public comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

means: (1) E-mail comments to: 

NEPA2008@wdc.usda.gov, (2) e-mail to 

e-gov Web site: www.regulations.gov, or 

(3) written comments to: Matt 

Harrington, National Environmental 

Coordinator, Ecological Sciences 

Division, Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

1400 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

USDA has determined through a Civil 

Rights Impact Analysis that the January 

21, 2009, interim final rule disclosed no 

disproportionately adverse impacts for 

minorities, women, or persons with 

disabilities. The provisions of this 

amendment do not alter the analysis 

that was originally prepared. Copies of 

the Civil Rights Impact Analysis are 

available from John Glover, Acting 

Director, Easement Programs Division, 

Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250, or electronically 

at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ 

GRP. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Section 2904 of the 2008 Act requires 

that the implementation of this 

provision be carried out without regard 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

chapter 35 of Title 44, U.S.C. Therefore, 

USDA is not reporting recordkeeping or 

estimated paperwork burden associated 

with this amendment. 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

USDA is committed to compliance 

with the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act and the Freedom to 

E-File Act, which require government 

agencies in general, and CCC in 

particular, to provide the public the 

option of submitting information or 

transacting business electronically to 

the maximum extent possible. 

Executive Order 12988 

This amendment to the January 21, 

2009, interim final rule has been 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The 

provisions of this amendment are not 

retroactive and preempt State and local 

laws to the extent that such laws are 

inconsistent with this interim final rule. 

Before an action may be brought in a 

Federal court of competent jurisdiction, 

the administrative appeal rights 

afforded persons at 7 CFR parts 11, 614, 

and 780 must be exhausted. 

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 

Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 

Pursuant to section 304 of the Federal 

Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 

(Pub. L. 103–354), USDA classified this 

rule as non-major. Therefore, a risk 

analysis was not conducted. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), USDA assessed the effects 

of this amendment to the January 21, 

2009, interim final rule on State, local, 

and Tribal Governments and the public. 

This rule does not compel the 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

any State, local, or Tribal Governments 

or anyone in the private sector; 

therefore, a statement under Section 202 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

is not required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) 

The January 21, 2009, interim final 

rule was not a major rule as defined by 

Section 804 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996. This amendment to the January 

21, 2009, interim final rule will not 

result in an annual effect on the 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
42172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

economy of $100 million or more, a 

major increase in costs or prices, or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete in domestic and export 

markets. The provisions of this 

amendment to the January 21, 2009, 

interim final rule do not alter the 

original determination under SBREFA. 

However, Section 2904(c) of the 2008 

Act requires that the Secretary use the 

authority in section 808(2) of Title 5, 

U.S.C., which allows an agency to 

forego SBREFA’s usual Congressional 

review delay of the effective date of a 

regulation if the agency finds that there 

is a good cause to do so. USDA hereby 

determines that it has good cause to do 

so to meet the Congressional intent to 

have the conservation programs 

authorized or amended by Title II of the 

2008 Act in effect as soon as possible. 

Accordingly, this rule is effective upon 

filing for public inspection by the Office 

of the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132 requires USDA to develop 

an accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ E.O. 13132 defines the 

term ‘‘policies that have federalism 

implications’’ to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under E.O. 

13132, USDA may not issue a regulation 

that has federalism implication, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs, and that is not required by statute 

unless the Federal Government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and 

local governments, or USDA consults 

with State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. USDA shows sensitivity to 

federalism concerns by requiring the 

State Conservationists to meet with, and 

provide opportunities for involvement 

of State and local governments through 

the State Technical Committee. The 

interim final rule published on January 

21, 2009, will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government as specified in E.O. 

13132. The provisions of this 

amendment do not alter this 

determination. Thus, the Executive 

Order does not apply to this rule. 

Executive Order 13175 

This amendment to the interim final 

rule of January 21, 2009, has been 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. USDA has assessed the 

impact of this interim final rule on 

Indian Tribal Governments and has 

concluded that this rule will not 

negatively affect communities of Indian 

Tribal Governments. The rule will 

neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

Governments, nor preempt tribal law. 

Discussion of Program 

Background 

This amendment is effective on the 

date published in the Federal Register. 

The GRP is a voluntary program to help 

farmers and ranchers protect grazing 

uses and related conservation values on 

their lands. GRP offers enrollment 

through conservation easements and 

through rental contracts. 

The 2008 Act made several program 

changes to GRP. Among the changes, the 

2008 Act added the ability of USDA to 

enter into a cooperative agreement with 

an eligible entity to own, write, and 

enforce easements. Thus, under a 

cooperative agreement, USDA provides 

matching funds to other entities to 

purchase conservation easements, rather 

than purchase such easements directly. 

The 2008 Act also requires USDA to 

‘‘ensure that the terms of an easement 

include a contingent right of 

enforcement for the Department’’ where 

title to the conservation easement is 

either held by an entity other than the 

Federal Government or title is 

transferred from the Federal 

Government to a non-Federal entity. 

The January 21, 2009, GRP interim 

final rule incorporated the changes to 

the program made by the 2008 Act. 

Additionally, USDA identified the 

contingent right of enforcement a 

Federal acquisition of a real property 

right. This identification as a Federal 

acquisition requires USDA to follow 

Federal land acquisition procedures for 

all easements acquired under GRP. 

In the preamble of the January 21, 

2009, interim final rule, USDA 

explained that it had consulted with the 

Office of the General Counsel and had 

determined that because the contingent 

right of enforcement appears within the 

terms of a conservation easement deed, 

it constituted an acquisition of a Federal 

real property right. Despite the sound 

reasoning provided in the preamble, 

USDA believes that it should reconsider 

its original interpretation. The 

conclusion that the inclusion of the 

term in a conservation easement deed 

constitutes as a Federal acquisition of 

real property is not consistent with 

Congressional intent gleaned from the 

legislative history of how such term is 

used in other parts of the 2008 Act, 

specifically the Farm and Ranch Lands 

Protection Program (FRPP), and how it 

is incorporated into GRP 

implementation. Therefore, USDA has 

examined whether an alternative 

understanding of the nature of the 

contingent right of enforcement can be 

ascertained. A similar revision is being 

made to the FRPP interim final 

regulation. 

Under GRP, USDA may enroll 

easements through three methods of 

enrollment. In particular, USDA has 

authority to: (1) Purchase conservation 

easements directly; (2) transfer title to 

those federally-acquired easements to a 

third party; or (3) enter into cooperative 

agreements with eligible entities for 

those entities to purchase, own, enforce, 

and monitor easements ‘‘in lieu of the 

Secretary.’’ Under the first two methods 

of enrollment, the conservation 

easement is purchased directly by the 

United States, and original title to the 

conservation easement is held by the 

United States. Therefore, these GRP 

easements are Federal acquisitions of 

real property rights. 

In contrast, under the third method of 

enrollment where an eligible entity 

purchases a conservation easement with 

Federal financial assistance, the United 

States Government is not expending 

funds to acquire title to the conservation 

easement, but instead receives a right of 

enforcement as a condition of 

assistance. 

For the third method of enrollment, 

the GRP statute prescribes the use of a 

cooperative agreement to provide a 

mechanism for GRP funds to assist 

eligible partners in the purchase of 

easements. Significantly, the GRP 

statute specifies that the ownership of 

the easement is in lieu of ownership by 

the Secretary. More particularly, Section 

1238Q of the GRP statute provides that: 

‘‘(e) Protection of Federal Investment— 

When delegating a duty under this 

section, the Secretary shall ensure that 

the terms of an easement include a 

contingent right of enforcement for the 

Department.’’ This text requires the 

Secretary to ensure that the easement 

‘‘includes’’ a contingent right of 

enforcement, rather than requiring the 

Secretary to ‘‘acquire’’ such right. When 

viewed in the context of the overall 

framework of the program to provide 

alternative ownership arrangements of 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 42173 

GRP easements, USDA interprets that 

the contingent right of enforcement in 

an easement purchased, owned, and 

written by a non-Federal entity is not a 

Federal acquisition of a real property 

right triggering Federal procedures such 

as 40 U.S.C. 3111 and the implementing 

Department of Justice Title standards. 

Rather, the incorporation of the 

contingent right of enforcement in the 

terms of the deed is a condition of 

Federal financial assistance. 

This revised interpretation of the 

contingent right of enforcement is more 

consistent with the revised structure of 

the GRP easement, which now provides 

for the third party acquisition option 

using Federal financial assistance. At 

the same time, this interpretation still 

meets the GRP statutory requirement 

that the NRCS Chief, on behalf of the 

United States, has the ability to protect 

the Federal investment for the duration 

of the GRP funded easement by 

interpreting the right of enforcement as 

a real property right which runs with 

the land. This right is obtained as a 

condition placed upon another entity to 

obtain funding under GRP for its 

acquisition of a conservation easement. 

Therefore, the inclusion of the right of 

enforcement in the deed is not an 

acquisition, and the Federal real 

property acquisition requirements do 

not apply. 

Wind and Solar Power Generation 

Facilities 

In the January 21, 2009, interim final 

rule, a new paragraph (h)(5) was added 

to § 1415.4 to allow for the inclusion of 

wind power facilities for on-farm use as 

a potential permitted use for the GRP 

participant’s farming or ranching 

operation pursuant to the Secretary’s 

discretionary authority established in 

the 2008 Act. In particular, Section 2403 

of the 2008 Act removed the prohibition 

against soil disturbing activities. 

Although USDA expressed support 

for wind power generation for on-farm 

use on GRP lands, USDA explained that 

the opportunity to place generating 

stations on easement or contract acres is 

not a guaranteed right. Authorization 

may only be provided after USDA 

conducts a site-specific evaluation to 

determine that there are no negative 

impacts on threatened, endangered or 

at-risk species, migratory wildlife, or 

related natural resources, cultural 

resources, or the human environment. 

While the January 21, 2009, interim 

final rule continued the prohibition 

against wind power facilities for offfarm power generation on GRP enrolled 

lands, the interim final rule did not 

address directly other types of 

renewable power generation facilities, 

such as solar panel arrays. USDA treated 

facilities differently depending on the 

intended use of the power generated 

from the wind power facilities, i.e. onfarm use versus off-farm use. USDA 

recognizes that even facilities 

authorized solely for on-farm use may 

generate some excess electricity that is 

utilized off-farm. 

USDA believes that off-farm wind 

power generation should not be 

identified specifically as prohibited on 

lands enrolled in GRP. The statute only 

identifies crop production (other than 

hay) as specifically prohibited to occur 

on enrolled lands. All other activities 

are evaluated by whether it is 

‘‘inconsistent with maintaining grazing 

uses and related conservation values 

protected under an easement or rental 

contract.’’ Therefore, USDA is amending 

the January 21, 2009, GRP interim final 

rule to remove the blanket prohibition 

upon wind power facilities for off-farm 

power generation. 

USDA is not replacing the blanket 

prohibition with a blanket authorization 

of wind power facilities. The scale and 

scope of wind power generation 

facilities vary greatly. The installation of 

large-scale wind power generation 

facilities constitutes a conversion 

activity to non-grazing uses, 

inconsistent with program purposes. 

However, a small-scale, appropriately 

sited facility may provide both the 

electricity needed to power electric 

livestock fencing on the easement while 

providing local off-farm electricity to a 

neighbor’s fencing as well. This 

variance of scope and scale requires 

site-specific evaluation for whether a 

particular activity will be authorized. 

USDA intended the original 

restriction to ‘‘on-farm’’ use to provide 

an inherent limitation upon the scale of 

facilities being considered for 

authorization. However, this limitation 

had the unintended consequence of 

requiring USDA to monitor electric 

usage of a landowner, rather than focus 

upon whether the landowner’s activities 

are consistent with the grazing and 

conservation purposes of the enrolled 

acreage. USDA believes the focus of an 

activity should remain upon its impacts 

to the grazing and conservation values 

of the enrollment. 

USDA will not authorize any wind 

power generating facilities (on-farm or 

off-farm) on GRP lands unless USDA 

determines, based on a site-specific 

National Environmental Policy Act 

environmental analysis (EA or EIS), that 

there will be no adverse effect on 

threatened, endangered or other at-risk 

species, migratory wildlife, or related 

natural resources, cultural resources, or 

the human environment or when the 

impacts of such facilities can be 

mitigated to a level of non-significance. 

Furthermore, USDA will only authorize 

power generation facilities after 

evaluating whether a reasonable 

alternative exists, whether there is a 

compelling public need, whether the 

purposes for which the easement was 

acquired can be maintained, and the 

degree to which the footprint of the 

facility and related infrastructure 

impacts the nature of the grazing lands 

and other conservation values obtained 

through the contract or easement. USDA 

will not authorize the installation of 

wind power generation facilities in 

situations where reasonable alternatives 

exist. 

USDA will follow the guidelines 

being developed by the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on 

avoiding and minimizing wildlife 

impacts from wind turbines. Until the 

guidelines are published, USDA will 

assess potential wildlife impacts in 

coordination with the FWS and the 

appropriate State fish and wildlife 

agency before authorizing any wind 

power generation facilities (on-farm or 

off-farm) on GRP lands. 

USDA also revises paragraph (h)(5) to 

authorize the installation of other types 

of renewable energy sources for power 

generation, provided they are consistent 

with the grazing uses and other 

conservation values of the program as 

determined by USDA on a site-specific 

basis. Just as for wind power generation 

facilities, USDA will not authorize the 

installation of renewable energy power 

generation facilities, such as solar power 

panel arrays, unless USDA determines 

through a site-specific EA or EIS there 

will be no adverse effect on threatened, 

endangered or other at-risk species, 

migratory wildlife, or related natural 

resources, cultural resources, or the 

human environment or when the 

impacts of such activities can be 

mitigated to a level of non-significance. 

USDA will authorize power generation 

facilities only when the footprint of the 

facility and related infrastructure would 

have a minimal impact on the nature of 

the grazing lands and other conservation 

values obtained through the contract or 

easement. 

Again, the opportunity to place any 

power-generating facilities and related 

infrastructure on easement or contract 

acres is not a guaranteed right. NRCS 

continues to seek public comment on 

how it should handle requests for 

renewable power generation facilities on 

GRP lands. 

Request for Public Input 

USDA supports the Nation’s ability to 

increase renewable energy production, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
42174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

conserve energy, mitigate the effects and 

adapt to climate change, and reduce 

carbon and greenhouse gas emissions 

through various assistance programs. 

USDA is using this rulemaking 

opportunity to obtain input from the 

public on how GRP can achieve its 

program purposes and contribute to the 

Nation’s efforts with renewable energy 

production, energy conservation, 

mitigating the effects of climate change, 

facilitating climate change adaptation, 

or reducing carbon emissions. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1415 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Agriculture, Soil 

conservation, Grasslands, Grassland 

protection, Grazing land protection. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the CCC amends part 1415 of Title 7 of 

the CFR as set forth below: 

PART 1415—GRASSLANDS RESERVE 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1415 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3838n–3838q. 

■ 2. Section 1415.3 is amended by 

revising the definition for the term 

‘‘Right of enforcement’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 1415.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

‘‘Right of enforcement’’ means a 

property interest in the easement the 

Chief may exercise on behalf of the 

United States under specific 

circumstances in order to enforce the 

terms of the conservation easement. The 

right of enforcement provides that the 

Chief has the right to inspect and 

enforce the easement if the eligible 

entity fails to uphold the easement or 

attempts to transfer the easement 

without first securing the consent of the 

Secretary. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 1415.4 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h)(5) and removing 

paragraph (i)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1415.4 Program requirements. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(5) Facilities for power generation 

through renewable sources of energy 

production provided the scope and 

scale of the footprint of the facility and 

associated infrastructure is consistent 

with program purposes as determined 

by USDA through analysis of the 

potential site-specific environmental 

effects; and 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 1415.17 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1415.17 Cooperative agreements. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) In order to protect the public 

investment, the conveyance document 

must contain a ‘‘right of enforcement.’’ 

NRCS shall specify the terms for the 

‘‘right of enforcement’’ clause to read as 

set forth in the GRP cooperative 

agreement. This right is a vested 

property right and cannot be 

condemned or terminated by State or 

local government. 

* * * * * 

Signed this 14th day of August, 2009, in 

Washington, DC. 

Dave White, 

Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation and Chief, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

Signed this 13th day of August, 2009, in 

Washington, DC. 

Carolyn B. Cooksie, 

Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency. 

[FR Doc. E9–20074 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, and 125 

[Docket No.: FAA–1999–6482; Amendment 

No. 91–304A, 121–342A and 125–56A] 

RIN 2120AG87 

Revisions to Digital Flight Data 

Recorder Regulations for Boeing 737 

Airplanes and for All Part 125 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; Notice of Office of 

Management and Budget approval for 

information collection. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB’s) approval of the information 

collection requirement contained in the 

FAA’s final rule, ‘‘Revisions to Digital 

Flight Data Recorder Regulations for 

Boeing 737 Airplanes and for All Part 

125 Airplanes.’’ That final rule was 

published on December 2, 2008. 

DATES: The FAA received OMB 

approval for the information collection 

requirements in the final rule published 

December 2, 2008, 73 FR 73171, on 

April 3, 2009. The final rule became 

effective on February 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues: Brian A. Verna, 

Avionics Systems Branch, Aircraft 

Certification Service, AIR–130, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

385–4643; facsimile (202) 385–4651; 

e-mail brian.verna@faa.gov. For legal 

issues: Karen L. Petronis, Senior 

Attorney, Regulations Division, AGC– 

200, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–3073; 

facsimile (202) 267–7971; e-mail: 

karen.petronis@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On December 2, 2008, the FAA 

published the final rule entitled 

‘‘Revisions to Digital Flight Data 

Recorder Regulations for Boeing 737 

Airplanes and for All Part 125 

Airplanes’’ (73 FR 73171). This rule 

amended the regulations governing 

flight data recorders to increase the 

number of digital flight data recorder 

parameters for all Boeing 737 series 

airplanes manufactured after August 18, 

2000. This change was based on safety 

recommendations from the National 

Transportation Safety Board following 

its investigations of two accidents and 

several incidents involving 737s. The 

final rule also adopted a prohibition on 

deviations from flight recorder 

requirements for all airplanes operated 

under part 125. 

The final rule contained information 

collection requirements that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) had 

not yet approved as of the date of 

publication. In the ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ section of the final rule, 

the FAA noted that the agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement, 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, OMB approved that 

request on April 3, 2009, and assigned 

the information collection OMB Control 

Number 2120–0616. The FAA request 

was approved by OMB without change 

and expires on April 30, 2012. This 

notice is being published to inform 

affected parties of the approval and to 

announce that the information 

collection requirements in the final rule 

entitled ‘‘Revisions to Digital Flight Data 

Recorder Regulations for Boeing 737 

Airplanes and for All Part 125 

Airplanes’’ will become effective when 

this notice is published in the Federal 

Register. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES