Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 18757 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves security of certain vessels and 

facilities and is not expected to result in 

any significant adverse environmental 

impact as described in NEPA. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 165.805 to read as follows: 

§ 165.805 Security Zones; Calcasieu River 

and Ship Channel, Louisiana. 

(a) Location. (1) The following areas 

are designated as fixed security zones 

(all coordinates are based upon North 

American Datum of 1983 [NAD 83]): 

(i) Trunkline LNG basin. All waters 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points, beginning at 30°06′36′′ 

N, 93°17′36′′ W, south to a point 

30°06′33′′ N, 93°17′36′′ W, east to a point 

30°06′30′′ N, 93°17′02′′ W, north to a 

point 30°06′33′′ N, 93°17′01′′ W, then 

tracing the shoreline along the water’s 

edge to the point of origin. 

(ii) Cameron LNG basin. All waters 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points, beginning at 30°02′33′′ 

N, 093°19′53′′ W, east to a point at 

30°02′34′′ N, 093°19′50′′ W, south to a 

point at 30°02′10′′ N, 093°19′52′′ W and 

west to a point at 30°02′10′′ N, 93°19′59′′ 

W, then tracing the shoreline along the 

water’s edge to the point of origin. 

(iii) PPG Industries basin. All waters 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points: Beginning at 30°13′29′′ 

N, 93°16′34′′ W, southwest to a point at 

30°13′11′′ N, 93°16′51′′ W, then 

proceeding southerly following 100 feet 

off the shoreline to a point at 

30°12′57.2′′ N, 93°16′53.2′′ W, then east 

to a point at 30°12′57.2′′ N, 93°16′50.6′′ 

W then southerly to a point at 

30°12′47.7′′ N, 93°16′50.3′′ W then west 

to the shoreline and then following 

along the water’s edge to the point of 

origin. 

(2) The following areas are moving 

security zones: All waters within the 

Captain of the Port, Port Arthur zone 

commencing at U.S. territorial waters 

and extending channel edge to channel 

edge on the Calcasieu Channel and 

shoreline to shoreline on the Calcasieu 

River, 2 miles ahead and 1 mile astern 

of certain designated vessels while in 

transit. Meeting, crossing or overtaking 

situations are not permitted within the 

security zone unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port. 

Coast Guard patrol assets will be on 

scene with flashing blue lights 

energized when the moving security 

zones are in effect. 

(b) Regulations. (1) Entry into or 

remaining in a fixed zone described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section is 

prohibited for all vessels except: 

(i) Commercial vessels operating at 

waterfront facilities within these zones; 

(ii) Commercial vessels transiting 

directly to or from waterfront facilities 

within these zones; 

(iii) Vessels providing direct 

operational or logistical support to 

commercial vessels within these zones; 

(iv) Vessels operated by the 

appropriate port authority or by 

facilities located within these zones; 

and 

(v) Vessels operated by federal, state, 

county, or municipal agencies. 

(2) Entry into or remaining in moving 

zones described in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section is prohibited for all vessels 

except: 

(i) Moored vessels or vessels anchored 

in a designated anchorage area. A 

moored or an anchored vessel in a 

security zone described in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section must remain 

moored or anchored unless it obtains 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

to do otherwise; 

(ii) Commercial vessels operating at 

waterfront facilities located within the 

zone; 

(iii) Vessels providing direct 

operational support to commercial 

vessels within a moving security zone; 

(iv) Vessels operated by federal, state, 

county, or municipal agencies. 

(3) Other persons or vessels requiring 

entry into security zones described in 

this section must request permission 

from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur 

or designated representatives. 

(4) To request permission as required 

by these regulations, contact Marine 

Safety Unit Lake Charles at (337) 491– 

7800 or the on scene patrol vessel. 

(5) All persons and vessels within a 

security zone described in this section 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, 

designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard 

patrol personnel or other designated 

representatives. On-scene U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel include 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Designated representatives include 

federal, state, local and municipal law 

enforcement agencies. 

(c) Informational Broadcasts: The 

Captain of the Port, Port Arthur will 

inform the public when moving security 

zones have been established around 

vessels via Broadcast Notices to 

Mariners and written notice provided by 

escort vessels. 

Dated: March 12, 2010. 

J.J. Plunkett, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Port Arthur. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8375 Filed 4–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9910–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0118; FRL–9124–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Alternate Monitoring Requirements for 

Indianapolis Power and Light—Harding 

Street Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Indiana requested on 

December 31, 2008, that EPA approve as 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
18758 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a revision to its State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) alternative monitoring 

requirements for the Indianapolis Power 

and Light Company (IPL) at its Harding 

Street Generating Station. The 

alternative monitoring requirements 

allow the use of a particulate matter 

(PM) continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) in place of a continuous 

opacity monitor system (COMS). 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective June 14, 2010, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 13, 

2010. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0118, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 385–5501. 

• Mail: Genevieve Damico, Acting 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, 

Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0118. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This Facility is open 

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

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone Matt Rau, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–6524 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria 

Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What Is the Background for This Action? 

II. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Revision? 

III. What Are the Environmental Effects of 

This Action? 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

Indiana has requested a revision to its 

SIP that would authorize an alternative 

monitoring plan contained in a State 

Commissioner’s Order for Unit 7 at IPL’s 

Harding Street Station, located in 

Indianapolis (Marion County), Indiana. 

Indiana submitted its request to EPA on 

December 31, 2008. The alternative 

monitoring plan allows IPL to use a 

particulate matter CEMS in place of a 

COMS to demonstrate compliance with 

applicable PM limits. 

IPL has installed a wet scrubber 

control device to control sulfur dioxide 

at its Harding Street Station Unit 7. The 

scrubber adds moisture to the exhaust 

gas, which condenses as the gas stream 

cools. According to Indiana Department 

of Environmental Management (IDEM), 

the condensation causes unreliable 

readings from the COMS on Unit 7. 

COMS measures opacity optically, so it 

cannot distinguish between light 

impairment caused by particulate and 

light impairment caused by moisture. 

The scrubber also removes some PM, so 

that placing the COMS prior to the 

exhaust entering the scrubber would 

also incorrectly measure those 

emissions from Unit 7. 

IDEM has requested EPA approval of 

the alternative monitoring requirements 

under 326 IAC 3–5–1(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the 

SIP, which EPA approved on December 

28, 2009 (74 FR 68541). This provision 

authorizes IDEM to approve an 

alternative monitoring requirement for 

fossil fuel-fired steam generators when 

IDEM determines that ‘‘installation of an 

opacity monitoring system would not 

provide accurate determinations of 

emissions as a result of interference 

from condensed uncombined water.’’ 

The PM CEMS will be placed after the 

scrubber. A PM CEMS with proper 

calibration should provide accurate PM 

emission readings, even with moisture 

from the scrubber in the exhaust stream. 

Indiana certified the Harding Street 

Station’s PM CEMS on June 22, 2009. 

The alternative monitoring plan for 

the Harding Street Station was adopted 

by Indiana on October 31, 2008, in 

Commissioner’s Order #2008–02. It is 

not effective, however, until EPA 

approves the plan as a SIP revision. See 

326 IAC 3–5–1(c)(2)(A)(iv). 

Indiana notified the public of an 

opportunity to request a public hearing 

on this action on November 12, 2008. It 

did not receive any comments or 

requests for a public hearing. 

II. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Revision? 

Under the alternative monitoring plan 

approved by Indiana in Commissioner’s 

Order #2008–02, IPL will continuously 

monitor PM emissions in place of 

opacity. The visible emissions exiting 

the stack are primarily composed of PM. 

Visible emissions observations under 40 

CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 9 

may be taken in the atmosphere after 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 18759 

1The Commissioner’s Order also contains a 

section granting a variance to IPL for the period of 

time between the completion of the CEMS 

certification and EPA’s approval of the alternative 

opacity monitoring plan. As noted in the variance 

provision: ‘‘This is a variance from State law only 

and does not change Federally approved SIP 

requirements.’’ Order at 4. 

any moisture has condensed and left the 

plume. A COMS, like the one at the 

Harding Street Station, reads the opacity 

in the stack. The addition of a wet 

scrubber will remove pollutants from 

the exhaust, but will add moisture. This 

moisture condenses as the exhaust cools 

in the stack causing a higher opacity 

reading from the COMS. Installing the 

COMS to read the opacity before the 

scrubber would also not give an 

accurate measurement of the facility’s 

emissions because the COMS would not 

reflect any emission reductions from the 

scrubber. 

The PM CEMS will be calibrated to 

provide accurate measurements even 

with moisture in the stack. The PM 

CEMS provides the particulate 

emissions from the facility. Knowing the 

emissions from the facility, IPL will be 

able to make adjustments or control 

device repairs should the emissions rise 

too high. This facility will average the 

PM CEMS data at time intervals 

specified in its Title V permit. IPL is 

also required to monitor other 

pollutants and their operating 

parameters. The alternate monitoring 

requirement removes the need to 

operate the COMS, but does not remove 

the opacity limits at the facility under 

SIP rules 326 IAC 5–1. Visible emissions 

observations in accordance with Method 

9 can still be made to determine 

whether the opacity limits are being 

met.1

III. What Are the Environmental Effects 

of This Action? 

PM interferes with lung function 

when inhaled. Exposure to PM can 

cause heart and lung disease. It also 

aggravates asthma. Airborne particulate 

is also a source of haze, which reduces 

visibility. PM deposited on the ground 

and in the water harms the environment 

by changing the nutrient and chemical 

balance. 

This action only changes the PM 

monitoring requirements for Unit 7 at 

the Harding Street Station. All other 

applicable air pollution control 

requirements remain in place. No 

changes in any emissions from the 

Harding Street Station are expected as a 

result of this action. 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is approving the alternative 

monitoring plan in Commissioner’s 

Order #2008–02 into the Indiana SIP. 

The alternative monitoring plan for 

IPL’s Harding Street Station is to use a 

PM CEMS on Unit 7 in place of a 

COMS. This action is consistent with 

Indiana SIP rule 326 IAC 3–5– 

1(c)(2)(A)(iii) because moisture in the 

facility’s exhaust stream could cause 

inaccurate opacity readings from a 

COMS. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

State plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective June 14, 2010 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by May 13, 

2010. If we receive such comments, we 

will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

June 14, 2010. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 14, 2010. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
18760 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 25, 2010. 

Walter W. Kovalick Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart P—Indiana 

■ 2. Section 52.770 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(194) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(194) On December 31, 2008, Indiana 

submitted a Commissioner’s Order that 

provided an alternative monitoring plan 

for Indianapolis Power and Light— 

Harding Street Generating Station in 

Marion County that is being 

incorporated into its SIP. The 

alternative monitoring requirements 

allow the use of a particulate matter 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system in place of a continuous opacity 

monitor. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

Commissioner’s Order #2008–02 for 

Indianapolis Power and Light as issued 

by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management on October 

31, 2008. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8295 Filed 4–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Part 89 

RIN 0991–AB60 

Organizational Integrity of Entities That 

Are Implementing Programs and 

Activities Under the Leadership Act 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department is issuing a 

final rule establishing the organizational 

integrity requirements for Federal 

funding recipients under the United 

States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 

Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 

(Leadership Act). This rule requires that 

funding announcements and agreements 

with funding recipients include a clause 

that states that the recipient is opposed 

to prostitution and sex trafficking 

because of the psychological and 

physical risks they pose for women, 

men and children. This rule also 

modifies the requirements for recipientaffiliate separation and eliminates the 

requirement for an additional 

certification by funding recipients. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 13, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Monahan, Office of Global Health 

Affairs, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 

Room 639H, 200 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20201, Tel: 202– 

690–6174, E-mail: ogha.os@hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Background 

Congress enacted the United States 

Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 

Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 

(‘‘Leadership Act’’) in May 2003. Public 

Law 108–25 [22 U.S.C. 7601–7682]. The 

Leadership Act contains limitations on 

the use of funds provided to carry out 

HIV/AIDS activities under the Act. 

Subsection 7631(f) prohibits the use of 

Leadership Act HIV/AIDS funds ‘‘to 

provide assistance to any group or 

organization that does not have a policy 

explicitly opposing prostitution and sex 

trafficking.’’ Subsection 7631(f) was 

amended in 2004 to exempt certain 

public international organizations. 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2004, Public Law 108–199, Div. D, Title 

II (2004). 

The United States government is 

opposed to prostitution and sex 

trafficking. In enacting the Leadership 

Act, Congress specifically found 

‘‘Prostitution and other sexual 

victimization are degrading to women 

and children and it should be the policy 

of the United States to eradicate such 

practices. The sex industry, the 

trafficking of individuals into such 

industry, and sexual violence are 

additional causes of and factors in the 

spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.’’ 

Leadership Act § 2(23) Public Law 108– 

25. Congressional hearings at the time of 

the Act showed a high incidence of HIV 

among prostitutes and that prostitution 

fueled the demand for sex trafficking. 

Accordingly, Congress unambiguously 

called for the elimination of prostitution 

and sex-trafficking as part of the United 

States’ fight against HIV/AIDS. 

Section 301(f) [22 U.S.C. 7631(f)] of 

the Leadership Act requires that funding 

recipients have a policy explicitly 

opposing prostitution and sex 

trafficking. Additionally, recipients of 

Leadership Act funds cannot engage in 

activities that are inconsistent with their 

opposition to prostitution and sex 

trafficking. 

Congress did not dictate the means by 

which the Department would 

implement the policy and the 

Congressional intent of the Act was not 

to overburden applicants with 

unnecessary requirements. For example, 

during legislative debate on the 

Leadership Act, in response to a 

question from Senator Leahy on the 

Senate floor regarding section 301(f), 

Senator Frist stated that ‘‘a statement in 

the contract or grant agreement between 

the U.S. Government and such 

organization that the organization is 

opposed to the practices of prostitution 

and sex trafficking because of the 

psychological and physical risks they 

pose for women * * * would satisfy the 

intent of the provision.’’ 149 CONG. 

REC. S6,457 (daily ed. May 15, 2003) 

(statement of Sen. Frist). 

B. Litigation and Regulatory Background 

The Leadership Act was challenged 

on constitutional grounds in two 

separate lawsuits after its enactment. In 

a case filed in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia, plaintiffs 

claimed the anti-prostitution provision 

compelled speech when the 

organization had no policy either 

opposing or supporting prostitution. 

DKT Int’l v. United States Agency for 

Int’l Dev. (USAID), 435 F. Supp. 2d 5 

(D.D.C. 2006). Ultimately, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit upheld the anti-prostitution 

provision, holding that the government 

had a legitimate interest in ensuring that 

organizations chosen to communicate 

its particular viewpoint did so in an 

efficient and effective fashion. DKT Int’l 

v. USAID, 477 F.3d 758 (DC Cir. 2007). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1