6452 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Previously, we have referred to section 121(c) 

but subsection (c) was redesignated as subsection 

(d), without substantive change to the definition, by 

the amendments to the Rehabilitation Act made by 

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA), P.L. 113–128. 

(g) Contact information. The COTP 

New Orleans may be reached via phone 

at (504) 365–2200. Any on-scene Coast 

Guard or designated representative 

assets may be reached via VHF–FM 

channel 16 or 67. 

Dated: January 9, 2015. 

P.C. Schifflin, 

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

Port New Orleans. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02322 Filed 2–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 369 and 371 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OSERS–0083] 

RIN 1820–AB66 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Projects for American Indians With 

Disabilities 

AGENCY: Rehabilitation Services 

Administration (RSA), Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the 

definition of ‘‘reservation’’ under the 

regulations governing the American 

Indian Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services (AIVRS) program to conform to 

the Department’s current interpretation 

and practices. ‘‘Reservation’’ means 

Federal or State Indian reservations; 

public domain Indian allotments; 

former Indian reservations in Oklahoma; 

land held by incorporated Native 

groups, regional corporations, and 

village corporations under the 

provisions of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act; and defined areas of 

land recognized by a State or the 

Federal Government where there is a 

concentration of tribal members and on 

which the tribal government is 

providing structured activities and 

services. 

DATES: These regulations are effective 

March 9, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Finch, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5147, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2800. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7343, or by email: 

Tom.Finch@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

23, 2014, the Secretary published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

for this program in the Federal Register 

(79 FR 35502). The NPRM followed a 

process of consultation under E.O. 

13175 that began with a request for 

tribal input that we published in the 

Federal Register on July 5, 2013 (78 FR 

40458) and continued with tribal 

consultation listening sessions in 

August and September 2013 in Smith 

River, California, and Scottsdale, 

Arizona, respectively. In the NPRM, we 

discussed this process in detail (79 FR 

35506). 

In the NPRM, we sought comment on 

two alternative definitions of 

‘‘reservation’’ as the term is used in 

section 121(d) of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (the Rehabilitation 

Act) (29 U.S.C. 741(d)).1 Only the 

governing bodies of Indian tribes and 

consortia of those governing bodies 

located on a Federal or State reservation 

are eligible for grants under the AIVRS 

program. 

‘‘Alternative A’’ proposed to amend 

§§ 369.4(b) and 371.4(b) to reflect the 

Department’s current interpretation and 

practices. The Department currently 

interprets the statutory definition of 

‘‘reservation,’’ which uses the term 

‘‘includes’’ before listing areas 

identified as ‘‘reservations’’ as nonexhaustive, and the Department’s 

practice has been to include other land 

areas that it views as equivalent to those 

listed in the statutory definition. Under 

this interpretation, tribes eligible for 

AIVRS grants are those located on land 

specifically identified in the statute— 

Federal or State Indian reservations; 

public domain Indian allotments; 

former Indian reservations in Oklahoma; 

and land held by incorporated Native 

groups, regional corporations, and 

village corporations under the 

provisions of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act—and those located on a 

defined area of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services. This definition 

includes lands identified in the U.S. 

Census as a State-designated tribal 

statistical area or a tribal-designated 

statistical area or are defined areas of 

land designated by statute, judicial 

decision, or administrative 

determination as areas where members 

of a particular State or federally 

recognized tribe reside. 

Proposed ‘‘Alternative B’’ proposed to 

amend §§ 369.4(b) and 371.4(b) to 

define ‘‘reservation’’ more narrowly as 

only those land areas specifically 

identified in the statutory definition of 

‘‘reservation’’: Federal or State Indian 

reservations; public domain Indian 

allotments; former Indian reservations 

in Oklahoma; and land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. 

We adopt Alternative A. There are no 

differences between Alternative A in the 

NPRM and these final regulations. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPRM, 56 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

alternatives. Fifty commenters wrote in 

support of Alternative A, one wrote in 

support of Alternative B, and five 

suggested other alternatives. We 

organize our discussion of substantive 

issues by the proposed alternative 

definitions. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments follows. 

Proposed Alternative A 

Comments: Nearly all of the 

commenters supported proposed 

Alternative A. They gave a number of 

reasons for doing so. Many commenters 

stated that their tribes would lose 

eligibility under Alternative B, that they 

wished to keep the services they 

currently have, and that the loss of 

services would unnecessarily harm 

hundreds of individuals. Without access 

to services, some of these commenters 

stated, many individuals would return 

to prison, relapse into addiction, or be 

unemployed, dependent on welfare, or 

homeless. Others related their personal 

experiences with their tribal vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) programs and stated 

how the programs helped them 

complete necessary education or 

training, find or keep jobs, start small 

businesses, and be productive citizens. 

Some tribal entities, regardless of 

their eligibility under Alternative B, 

stated that the Department should adopt 

Alternative A because broader eligibility 

means that more disabled Indians, who 

are among the neediest Americans and 

are already underserved, could receive 

necessary VR services. These 

commenters also noted that tribes 

operate their VR programs well, even 

often serving nearby members of other 

tribes in addition to their own, and that 

the current standard for eligibility under 

the AIVRS program works well. Still 

other commenters noted that members 

of tribes who would lose eligibility 

under Alternative B would not receive 

equivalent services from State VR 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6453 

agencies. This is so, they stated, because 

State VR agencies are sometimes too far 

away to be accessible. Even if they were 

closer by, State VR agencies have 

limited experience providing vocational 

rehabilitation services in a culturally 

relevant manner, so tribal members 

would be less likely to have successful 

outcomes or to seek services in the first 

place. Other commenters said that, 

given current funding levels, State VR 

agencies are not able to provide services 

to many more individuals than they 

currently serve. As a result, if some 

tribes could no longer provide VR 

services, many of their members would 

not receive services from the State VR 

agency either. 

Finally, one commenter noted that 

Alternative A would further the purpose 

of the AIVRS program, namely to 

provide culturally appropriate VR 

services to as many tribal members as 

possible. Two other commenters noted 

that the broader definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ in Alternative A is 

consistent with many other Federal 

programs under which tribes deliver 

services to their members in federally 

defined service areas. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

who shared their personal thoughts and 

experiences. The Department is aware of 

the hardships that removing VR services 

could cause some tribal members. We 

received comments to this effect not 

only in response to the NPRM but also 

during our tribal consultation process: 

The request for tribal input that we 

published on July 5, 2013 (78 FR 

40458), and the tribal consultation 

listening sessions that we held in 

August and September 2013 in Smith 

River, California, and Scottsdale, 

Arizona, respectively. We are similarly 

aware of how tribal members have 

benefitted from tribal VR services and of 

the good work that tribal VR agencies 

do. 

We agree that the broader 

interpretation of ‘‘reservation’’ in the 

Department’s current practice and under 

the definition in Alternative A would 

maintain a larger pool of eligible tribes 

than would the definition in Alternative 

B. Our experience does not, however, 

support the assertion that Alternative A 

would result in tribal VR agencies 

actually serving more tribal members 

overall or placing more total tribal 

members overall in employment than 

would Alternative B. Nor do we see that 

Alternative B would result in services 

being provided to any more or any fewer 

tribal members than Alternative A. As 

we stated in the NPRM, we expect to 

fund future grantees at the same level as 

we fund current grantees, depending on 

appropriations, and the number of tribal 

members served nationwide would 

remain essentially the same whether we 

adopt Alternative A or Alternative B (79 

FR 35505). Alternative B would just 

result in a shift of resources from one 

applicant pool of tribes to another. 

We agree with the comment that, if 

tribal VR agencies lost eligibility under 

Alternative B, their members would 

most likely go unserved because State 

VR agencies would not be able to 

provide services to any more, or many 

more, individuals than they already do. 

Again as we noted in the NPRM, our 

own inquiries to State VR agencies 

resulted in similar concerns. While the 

Washington State VR agency would be 

able to serve some of the tribal members 

served by the two tribal VR agencies in 

that State, the North Carolina and 

Louisiana VR agencies did not expect to 

be able to serve any additional 

consumers. We noted also that 

Louisiana is under an order of selection 

whereby it serves only individuals with 

the most severe or significant 

disabilities. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

the current consumers who do not have 

the most significant disabilities would 

be able to receive VR services under an 

order of selection. (79 FR 35505). 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

statement that the purpose of the AIVRS 

program is to provide services to as 

many tribal members as possible. The 

purpose of the program is to enable the 

tribes themselves to provide culturally 

relevant VR services to their members 

with disabilities. 

While we do agree with the 

commenter who noted that Alternative 

A is consistent with other Federal 

programs that allow tribes to provide 

services to their members in designated 

services areas, we note that having a 

service area under another Federal 

program does not, in and of itself, 

qualify that service area as a 

‘‘reservation’’ under this definition. For 

example, a service area can be created 

for a particular program as part of a 

tribe’s program application. This selfidentification does not reflect any 

formal decision-making or considered 

recognition by a State or the Federal 

Government about the status of the 

service area for any other purposes. 

By contrast, a State or Federal 

administrative determination not tied to 

funding a specific program application 

would qualify as ‘‘land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government’’ under 

this definition. These administrative 

determinations might include an 

executive order issued by a Governor to 

provide formal State recognition of a 

tribe or the Department of the Interior’s 

recognition of a service area a part of the 

Federal acknowledgement process. 

Finally, we agree with the general 

viewpoint of these comments, namely 

that we should favor the broader 

interpretation of ‘‘reservation’’ in 

Alternative A over the narrower 

interpretation of Alternative B. We need 

not repeat any of the legal analysis we 

set out in the NPRM (78 FR 35504). It 

is well established that the 

Rehabilitation Act has a remedial 

purpose, namely to promote and expand 

employment opportunities for 

individuals with disabilities, Consol. 

Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 634 

(1984), and that a remedial statute 

should be interpreted broadly to effect 

its purposes. Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 

U.S. 332, 336 (1967). As we stated in the 

NPRM, we believe that the definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ in section 121 of the 

Rehabilitation Act is subject to different 

interpretations and that Alternative A is 

a reasonable interpretation (79 FR 

35504). 

Given all of this, we decline to change 

our current practice or our current 

interpretation of ‘‘reservation’’ as the 

term is used in section 121(d) of the 

Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 741(d)). 

Choosing the narrow definition in 

Alternative B and limiting eligibility 

under AIVRS to only those tribes 

located on areas of land explicitly 

identified in the statute would not 

improve the AIVRS program. There 

would be no net gain in the number of 

VR consumers served nationwide. 

Instead, some consumers would lose the 

VR services they now receive. Though a 

similar number of other consumers 

elsewhere in the country would begin to 

receive VR services, the consumers who 

would lose services would not likely 

receive equivalent VR services 

elsewhere, and many would suffer 

hardship as a result. 

Alternative A would likewise result in 

no change in the number of consumers 

served under AIVRS. However, this 

alternative has allowed grantees in the 

program to serve their consumers well 

for more than two decades and would 

not cause the disruption and harm to 

individual consumers that Alternative B 

would cause. Therefore, we believe that 

the best approach to achieve the 

statute’s purpose is to continue to 

interpret a reservation as a defined area 

of land recognized by a State or the 

Federal Government where there is a 

concentration of tribal members and on 

which the tribal government is 

providing structured activities and 

services, making tribes with those areas 

of land eligible for a grant under the 

AIVRS program. 

Change: None. We adopt Alternative 

A unchanged from the NPRM. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed Alternative B 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the adoption of Alternative B. This 

commenter acknowledged that 

Alternative B might cause some tribes 

that are currently funded to lose 

eligibility under the AIVRS program. 

The commenter stated, however, that 

the narrower interpretation was more 

consistent with the trust relationship 

between the United States and the 

Indian tribes, which, by definition, 

exists only with federally recognized 

tribes, many but not all of which have 

a reservation. According to the 

commenter, Alternative B would 

therefore better ensure that tribes with 

whom the United States has a trust 

relationship would have access to the 

funds available under the AIVRS 

program. 

Discussion: By authorizing the 

Department to make grants to tribes 

‘‘located on Federal and State 

reservations’’ the Rehabilitation Act 

makes both federally and Staterecognized tribes eligible under AIVRS. 

By including State-recognized tribes as 

eligible applicants under the AIVRS 

program, Congress has already 

concluded that the benefits of the 

AIVRS program may be shared with 

those tribes that are not federally 

recognized and thus, do not have the 

trust relationship with the United States 

as described by the commenter. 

Additionally, Congress has already 

concluded that having land associated 

with the tribe (i.e. a Federal or State 

reservation), as opposed to having the 

trust relationship referred to by the 

commenter, is a necessary condition for 

eligibility. It is consistent with this 

broad intent to include in the definition 

of ‘‘reservation’’ land that has 

characteristics similar in all important 

and practical respects to a traditional 

reservation, thereby providing an 

opportunity to a greater number of tribes 

to participate in the AIVRS program. 

Finally, we note that nothing precludes 

federally recognized tribes from 

establishing VR programs and applying 

to be AIVRS grantees. 

Change: We adopt Alternative A 

unchanged from the NPRM. 

Other Alternatives 

Comments: Other commenters 

suggested four alternative 

interpretations of ‘‘reservation.’’ One 

commenter suggested that ‘‘reservation’’ 

should be defined to mean any territory 

where indigenous people of the United 

States are located and observe 

traditional practices, religions, or 

culture. Another commenter suggested 

that we expand the reference to 

‘‘incorporated Native groups . . . under 

the provisions of the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act’’ to any 

incorporated group anywhere because 

78 percent of Indians do not live on 

reservations. Two commenters stated 

that any federally or State-recognized 

tribe should be eligible, regardless of 

whether the tribe is landless. And one 

commenter suggested limiting eligibility 

to federally recognized tribes. 

Discussion: All of these suggestions 

would require a change in the statutory 

definition of ‘‘reservation.’’ This 

requires congressional action; the 

Department does not have the authority 

to make any of these changes by 

regulation. 

Change: None. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f)(4) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final regulations 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits would justify their costs. 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that maximize net 

benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

these final regulations are consistent 

with the principles in Executive Order 

13563. 

The amendment to the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘reservation’’ we adopt, 

Alternative A, should produce no 

change in costs or benefits as it 

conforms the definition to the 

Department’s current interpretation and 

practices. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These regulations do not contain any 

information collection requirements. 

Assessment of Education Impact 

Based on the response to the NPRM 

and on our review, we have determined 

that these final regulations do not 

require transmission of information that 

any other agency or authority of the 

United States gathers or makes 

available. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6455 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance Number 84.250. 

List of Subjects 

34 CFR Part 369 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vocational rehabilitation. 

34 CFR Part 371 

Grant programs-Indians, Grant 

programs-social programs Indians, 

Vocational rehabilitation. 

Dated: February 2, 2015. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary amends parts 

369 and 371 of title 34 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 369—VOCATIONAL 

REHABILITATION SERVICE 

PROJECTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 369 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c), 741, 773, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 369.4(b) is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Reservation’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 369.4 What definitions apply to these 

programs? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reservation means a Federal or State 

Indian reservation; public domain 

Indian allotment; former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma; land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act; or a 

defined area of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services. 

(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 121(e) of the 

Act; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 741(e)) 

* * * * * 

PART 371—VOCATIONAL 

REHABILITATION SERVICES 

PROJECTS FOR AMERICAN INDIANS 

WITH DISABILITIES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 371 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 741, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 4. Section 371.4(b) is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Reservation’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 371.4 What definitions apply to this 

program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reservation means a Federal or State 

Indian reservation; public domain 

Indian allotment; former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma; land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act; or a 

defined area of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services. 

(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 121(e) of the 

Act; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 741(e)) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–02306 Filed 2–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0772; FRL–9922–42– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

North Carolina, through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (NC DENR) on 

January 31, 2008, May 24, 2010, October 

11, 2013, and February 11, 2014, 

pertaining to state rule changes to the 

North Carolina Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program. 

Specifically, these SIP revisions update 

the North Carolina I/M program as well 

as repeal one rule that is included in the 

federally-approved SIP. In this final 

rulemaking, EPA is also responding to 

comments received on the proposed 

approval. 

DATES: This rule will be effective March 

9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2013–0772. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

(formerly the Regulatory Development 

Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, (formerly the 

Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta Ward, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Ward 

can be reached by telephone at (404) 

562–9140 and via electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES