79604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National Parks, Wilderness. 

Dated: December 14, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32819 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9611–1] 

RIN 2040–AF36 

Effective Date for the Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to extend the 

March 6, 2012 effective date of the 

‘‘Water Quality Standards for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Final Rule’’ (inland waters rule) for 

ninety days to June 4, 2012. EPA’s 

inland waters rule included an effective 

date of March 6, 2012 for the entire 

regulation except for the site-specific 

alternative criteria provision, which 

took effect on February 4, 2011. This 

proposal to revise the effective date for 

the inland waters rule does not affect or 

change the February 4, 2011 effective 

date for the site-specific alternative 

criteria provision. In this proposal, EPA 

is requesting comment on extending the 

effective date for the ‘‘Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule.’’ 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0596, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2009–0596. 

4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. 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 email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your email 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to 

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. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket, 

visit EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyright 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket Facility. The Office of Water 

(OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

OW Docket Center telephone number is 

(202) 566–1744 and the Docket address 

is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. The 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this rulemaking, 

contact: Tracy Bone, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Water, Mailcode 4305T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20460; telephone number (202) 

564–5257; email address: 

bone.tracy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

Citizens concerned with water quality 

in Florida may be interested in this 

rulemaking. Entities discharging 

nitrogen or phosphorus to lakes and 

flowing waters of Florida could be 

indirectly affected by this rulemaking 

because water quality standards (WQS) 

are used in determining National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit limits. Categories and 

entities that may ultimately be affected 

include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ............................................................................... Industries discharging pollutants to lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79605 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Municipalities ...................................................................... Publicly-owned treatment works discharging pollutants to lakes and flowing waters in 

the State of Florida. 

Stormwater Management Districts ..................................... Entities responsible for managing stormwater runoff in Florida. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for entities that may be directly or 

indirectly affected by this action. This 

table lists the types of entities of which 

EPA is now aware that potentially could 

be affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table, such as 

nonpoint source contributors to 

nitrogen/phosphorus pollution in 

Florida’s waters may be affected through 

implementation of Florida’s water 

quality standards program (i.e., through 

Basin Management Action Plans 

(BMAPs)). Any parties or entities 

conducting activities within watersheds 

of the Florida waters covered by this 

rule, or who rely on, depend upon, 

influence, or contribute to the water 

quality of the lakes and flowing waters 

of Florida, may be affected by this rule. 

To determine whether your facility or 

activities may be affected by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

language in 40 CFR 131.43, which is the 

final rule. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

II. Background 

On December 6, 2010, EPA’s final 

inland waters rule, entitled ‘‘Water 

Quality Standards for the State of 

Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Final Rule’’, was published in the 

Federal Register at 75 FR 75762, and 

codified at 40 CFR 131.43. The final 

inland waters rule established numeric 

nutrient criteria in the form of total 

nitrogen, total phosphorus, 

nitrate+nitrite, and Chlorophyll a for the 

different types of Florida’s inland 

waters to assure attainment of the 

State’s applicable water quality 

designated uses. More specifically, the 

numeric nutrient criteria translate 

Florida’s narrative nutrient provision at 

Subsection 62–302–530(47)(b), Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.), into 

numeric values that apply to lakes and 

springs throughout Florida and flowing 

waters outside of the South Florida 

Region. (EPA has distinguished the 

South Florida Region as those areas 

south of Lake Okeechobee and the 

Caloosahatchee River watershed to the 

west of Lake Okeechobee and the St. 

Lucie watershed to the east of Lake 

Okeechobee.) This final action seeks to 

improve water quality, protect public 

health and aquatic life, and achieve the 

long-term recreational uses of Florida’s 

waters, which are a critical part of the 

State’s economy. 

As stated in 40 CFR 131.43(f), 75 FR 

75807, the rule is scheduled to take 

effect on March 6, 2012, except for the 

site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) 

provision at 40 CFR 131.43(e), which 

took effect on February 4, 2011. EPA 

selected the March 6, 2012 effective date 

for the criteria part of the rule to allow 

time for EPA to work with stakeholders 

and the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) on 

important implementation issues, to 

help the public and all affected parties 

better understand the final criteria and 

the bases for those criteria, and for EPA 

to engage and support, in full 

partnership with FDEP, the general 

public, stakeholders, local governments, 

and sectors of the regulated community 

across the State in a process of public 

outreach education, discussion, and 

constructive planning. 75 FR 75787. 

III. Proposed Effective Date 

A. Current Inland Waters Rule Effective 

Date and Rationale 

The current effective date for the 

inland waters rule is March 6, 2012 

except, as noted earlier, for the sitespecific alternative criteria (SSAC) 

provision, which became effective 

February 4, 2011. As mentioned earlier, 

in the December 6, 2010, preamble for 

the final rule (75 FR 75762, 75787), the 

Agency noted its desire to actively 

engage in partnership with the Florida 

Department of the Environment (FDEP) 

to support FDEP’s implementation of 

the new criteria before the criteria take 

effect. The 15-month period between 

publication and the effective date was to 

allow for education and outreach efforts 

targeted at the major interest sectors and 

geographic locations throughout the 

State of Florida, including training and 

guidance concurrent with data synthesis 

and analysis to support potential SSAC 

development; public comment and 

response period to allow development 

of effective guidance, training and 

possible workshops to run concurrent 

with SSAC submittals; finalizing 

guidance materials along with 

development of rollout strategies 

concurrent with notice and comment of 

SSAC guidance; and finally statewide 

education and training on guidance and 

contingency planning. These actions 

were considered reasonably necessary to 

ensure application of programs to 

achieve criteria in a manner to make the 

most efficient use of limited resources 

and to gain the broadest possible 

support for timely and effective action 

upon reaching the effective date of the 

criteria. 

Since December of 2010, EPA at both 

the Headquarters and Regional levels 

has worked in collaboration with the 

State on outreach and education efforts 

including: participating in multiple 

meetings with a wide variety of local 

officials from Florida, conducting 

various webinars and meetings with 

respect to the final rule, including the 

SSAC provision, and participating in 

technical meetings with various 

stakeholder groups. EPA has met with a 

wide range of stakeholders and local 

officials, including: State, county and 

city representatives, utility managers 

and water districts, and representatives 

from industry and agriculture. Between 

November 2010 and March 2011, EPA 

conducted five webinars discussing 

various aspects of the final rule for 

lakes, streams and springs and its 

implementation, with participation by 

over 750 people from a wide range of 

stakeholder groups in Florida. EPA met 

with and/or held conference calls with 

local officials from Palm Beach County, 

Jacksonville, Gainesville, Polk County 

and several of the State’s Water 

Management Districts. EPA hosted 

officials from the Florida League of 

Cities and the Association of Counties 

for a day-long meeting to address 

questions and concerns from those 

officials. EPA also participated in 

conferences sponsored by organizations 

such as the League of Cities, Association 

of Counties, Florida Stormwater 

Association, Air and Water Managers 

Association, and the Florida 

Engineering Society. EPA has been 

coordinating closely with FDEP on 

issues related to implementation of the 

rule and supporting State efforts to 

develop State-adopted numeric nutrient 

criteria. 

B. Rationale for Extending the March 6, 

2012 Effective Date 

EPA is proposing to extend the 

effective date of the inland waters rule 

(with the exception of the SSAC 

provision, which is already in effect) for 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79606 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ninety days, to June 4, 2012, for the 

reasons discussed in this section. 

Since the promulgation of the 

December 6, 2010 final rule for Florida’s 

inland waters, EPA has continued to 

work in close coordination with the 

State of Florida as the State develops its 

own rulemaking for numeric nutrient 

criteria that are consistent with 

requirements of the CWA, address the 

water quality needs of the State, and 

support effective permit 

implementation, water body assessment 

and listing, and development of TMDLs. 

On November 10, 2011, FDEP proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria and related 

provisions for inland as well as a 

number of estuarine waters for the State, 

which were published in the Florida 

Administrative Weekly (Volume 37, 

number 45, pages 3753–3775). On 

December 8, 2011, the State’s 

Environmental Review Commission 

(ERC) approved these proposed rules 

with additional amendments. On 

December 9, 2011, it is EPA’s 

understanding that FDEP submitted the 

ERC-approved rules and amendments to 

the Florida Legislature for ratification 

during the 2012 legislative session. 

Since the ERC approved additional 

amendments to the rules that were 

proposed on November 10, 2011, EPA 

understands that FDEP must publish a 

notice of change, which is expected to 

be included in the December 23, 2011 

edition of the Florida Administrative 

Weekly. 

At the time of today’s proposed 

effective date extension, the State 

rulemaking and legislative process is 

ongoing and its ultimate resolution is 

uncertain. Nonetheless, final State 

action in this area could have significant 

implications for many interested parties 

and members of the public in the State 

on the need to move forward with 

implementation of EPA’s inland water 

numeric criteria in the event that 

alternative Florida numeric nutrient 

criteria are established that assure 

attainment of State water quality 

designated uses consistent with 

applicable CWA provisions. Successful 

State action on this issue could also 

affect the obligations and expectations 

of a wide range of affected stakeholders 

whose actions relate to the discharge or 

contribution of nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution to State waters. 

The last day of Florida’s 2012 regular 

legislative session is March 9, 2012. 

Extending the effective date of EPA’s 

inland waters rule would avoid the 

confusion and inefficiency that may 

occur should Federal criteria become 

effective while State criteria are being 

finalized by the State and reviewed by 

EPA. If the State decides to not proceed 

with final numeric nutrient criteria 

before EPA finalizes this proposal to 

extend the effective date, EPA 

anticipates not finalizing an extension 

of the March 6, 2012, effective date. 

However, if the State rulemaking 

process continues as planned toward 

FDEP’s submission of new or revised 

water quality standards to EPA for 

review pursuant to CWA section 303(c), 

EPA anticipates and proposes extending 

the March 6, 2012 effective date by 

ninety days to June 4, 2012, to allow the 

State to complete its process. Should the 

State decide not to proceed with final 

numeric nutrient criteria after the 

ninety-day extension is finalized, EPA 

anticipates the inland waters rule would 

become effective at the end of the ninety 

days, on June 4, 2012. If, however, the 

State rulemaking process results in final 

and effective numeric nutrient criteria 

after EPA has finalized the ninety-day 

extension, EPA would expect to propose 

a further extension of the effective date 

of the inland waters rule, to allow FDEP 

to submit the rule to EPA for review and 

action under section 303(c) of the CWA, 

for EPA to complete its review of the 

State rule, and for EPA to withdraw any 

Federal numeric nutrient criteria 

corresponding to any State-adopted 

numeric nutrient criteria that have been 

approved by EPA. 

Should EPA decide to extend the 

effective date of the inland waters rule, 

the Agency will continue to work with 

Florida towards implementation of 

Federal or State numeric nutrient 

criteria. As EPA stated in the preamble 

to the final inland waters rule, the 

opportunity that is presented by 

numeric nutrient criteria—for 

substantial nitrogen and phosphorus 

loadings reductions in the State— 

‘‘would be greatly facilitated and 

expedited by strongly coordinated and 

well-informed stakeholder engagement, 

planning, and support before a rule of 

this significance and broad scope begins 

to take effect and be implemented 

through the State’s regulatory 

programs.’’ 75 FR 75787. 

EPA solicits comments regarding the 

proposed extension of ninety days, to 

June 4, 2012, for the effective date of the 

inland waters rule. EPA also requests 

comment on whether a longer extension 

should be provided to allow Florida 

more time to complete the State 

rulemaking process. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), since it merely 

extends the effective date of an already 

promulgated rule, and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive Order 

12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 

21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

does not impose any information 

collection burden, reporting or record 

keeping requirements on anyone. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of this action on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

This proposed rule does not establish 

any requirements that are applicable to 

small entities, but rather merely extends 

the date of already promulgated 

requirements. Thus, I certify that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79607 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives, and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

This proposed rule contains no 

Federal mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

the private sector. This proposed rule 

does not regulate or affect any entity 

and, therefore, is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

merely extends the effective date of an 

already promulgated regulation. 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has 

Tribal implications, 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 Tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

Tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation and 

develops a Tribal summary impact 

statement. However, the rule will 

neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Tribal 

governments, nor preempt Tribal law. 

In the State of Florida, there are two 

Indian Tribes, the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Florida, with lakes and 

flowing waters. Both Tribes have been 

approved for treatment in the same 

manner as a State (TAS) status for CWA 

sections 303 and 401 and have 

federally-approved WQS in their 

respective jurisdictions. These Tribes 

are not subject to this proposed rule. 

This rule will not impact the Tribes 

because it merely extends the date of 

already promulgated requirements. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866 and because the 

Agency does not believe this action 

includes environmental health risks or 

safety risks that would present a risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. This 

action is not subject to E.O. 12898 

because this action merely extends the 

effective date for already promulgated 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Water 

quality standards, Nitrogen/phosphorus 

pollution, Nutrients, Florida. 

Dated: December 16, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32793 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 52 

[WC Docket No. 07–244; CC Docket No. 95– 

116; DA 11–1954] 

Local Number Portability Porting 

Interval and Validation Requirements; 

Telephone Number Portability 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; comments 

requested. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

submission by the North American 

Numbering Council (NANC) 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS