Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 61597 

listed below. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified below is to be 

determined by measuring only 

isopyrazam, 3-difluoromethyl-1-methyl1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylic acid (9- 

isopropyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-1,4- 

methano-naphthalen-5-yl)-amide, in or 

on the following commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Banana1 .................................... 0.05 

1There is no U.S. registration for use of 

isopyrazam on banana. 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2011–25707 Filed 10–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Parts 18 and 19 

RIN 2105–AD60 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements to 

State and Local Governments: DOT 

Amendments on Regulations on 

Uniform Administrative Requirements 

for Grants and Agreements With 

Institutions of Higher Education, 

Hospitals and Other Non-Profit 

Organizations 

AGENCY: Department of Transportation 

(DOT), Office of the Secretary (OST). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation (DOT) is adopting a 

public proposal on Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements to State and 

Local Governments; Grants and 

Agreements with Institutions of Higher 

Education, Hospitals and Other NonProfit Organizations. The rule amends 

Department of Transportation 

regulations on uniform administrative 

requirements for grants and agreements 

with Institutions of Higher Education, 

Hospitals and other Non-profit 

Organizations. Specifically, the DOT is 

making requirements for these grants 

and agreements consistent with the 

uniform administrative requirements for 

grants and cooperative agreements to 

State and Local governments. In 

addition, this rule updates references to 

applicable cost principles for grants and 

cooperative agreements with State and 

Local Governments that appear in 

current Department of Transportation 

regulations. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Shields, Office of the Senior 

Procurement Executive, Office of 

Administration (M–61), (202) 366– 

4268, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office 

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. 

e.t., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Background 

Regulations governing two types of 

U.S. Department of Transportation grant 

and cooperative agreements recipients 

are found in Parts 18 and 19 of Title 49 

of the Code of Federal Regulations: 

1. 49 CFR part 18: Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements to State 

and Local Governments. 

2. 49 CFR part 19: Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Agreements with Institutions of 

Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other 

Non-Profit Organizations. 

Both of these parts contain a 

provision that governs allowable costs. 

However, 49 CFR 18.22 imposes specific 

limitations on the use of grant funds 

while 49 CFR 19.27 merely lists cost 

principles applicable to each kind of 

grant and agreement recipient. 

Specifically, under 49 CFR 18.22(a), 

grant funds may only be used for: 

(1) The allowable costs of the 

grantees, subgrantees and cost-type 

contractors, including allowable costs in 

the form of payments to fixed-price 

contractors; and 

(2) Reasonable fees or profit to costtype contractors but not any fee or profit 

(or other increment above allowable 

costs) to the grantee or subgrantee. 

Public comments on this matter were 

solicited in a Federal Register notice 

dated May 2, 2008. Only one comment 

was received, from Robert Taylor, 

regarding the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) cost principle circulars as 

well as revisions prohibiting the 

payment of profit or fee to grantees and 

subgrantee covered by 49 CFR part 19. 

This comment did not pertain to the 

content of the proposed rule. Therefore, 

we are adopting the proposed rule 

without change. 

This rule imposes the same limitation 

on the use of funds used for Grants and 

Agreements with Institutions of Higher 

Education, Hospitals, and Other NonProfit Organizations as there are on the 

use of funds used for Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements to State 

and Local Governments. 

In addition, this rule updates 

references to applicable cost principles 

for grants and cooperative agreements 

with State and Local Governments that 

appear in 49 CFR 18.22(b) and include 

comparable updates references in 49 

CFR 19.27(b). These updated references 

are necessary in light of the 

establishment of title 2 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations in 2004. Subtitle A 

of title 2 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations consists of governmentwide guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

Federal agencies for grants and other 

financial assistance and 

nonprocurement agreements that 

previously had been contained in seven 

separate OMB circulars and other OMB 

policy documents. Currently, 49 CFR 

18.22(b) references three specific OMB 

circulars that are now codified in 

several Parts in chapter II, subtitle A of 

title 2 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This rule amends 49 CFR 

18.22(b) by replacing the citations to 

these former OMB circulars with the 

appropriate references in title 2 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations and would 

reflect these same changes in 49 CFR 

19.27(b). 

The rule also makes minor referencing 

revisions to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) cost principle 

circulars and, consistent with OMB 

materials, revises prohibitions on 

payment of profit or fee to grantees and 

subgrantees covered by 49 CFR part 19. 

The revised referencing is needed as the 

OMB cost circulars have been published 

in Title II of the Code of Federal 

Regulations since August 2005. 

However, these OMB circulars are only 

published as guidance (see 2 CFR 

1.105(a)). Also, the OMB circular 

number has been retained in the title of 

each circular, for example, 2 CFR part 

225, Cost Principles for State and Local 

Governments (OMB Circular A–87). 

The title for the CFR part 19, which 

includes the OMB Circular number in 

the title, is included in the reference for 

all three cost principles. In addition, 

this makes the formatting of all titles in 

49 CFR sections 18.22 and 18.27 

consistent. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The DOT has determined that this 

document does not constitute a 

significant rule within the meaning of 

Executive Order 12866 or within the 

meaning of Department of 

Transportation regulatory policies and 

procedures. DOT anticipates that the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
61598 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

economic impact of this rule will be 

minimal because the effect of the rule is 

simply to make similar provisions 

consistent with each other. These 

changes do not adversely affect, in a 

material way, any sector of the 

economy. In addition, the change does 

not interfere with any action taken or 

planned by another agency and does not 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

any entitlements, grants, user fees, or 

loan programs. Consequently, a full 

regulatory evaluation is not required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

60l–612) the Department has evaluated 

the effects of this proposed action on 

small entities. This ruledoes not have 

any economic effects, let alone 

significant effects, on anyone. This 

rulemaking establishes the same 

limitation on the use of funds for both 

Grants and Agreements with Institutions 

of Higher Education, Hospitals, and 

Other Non-Profit Organizations and 

Uniform Administrative Requirements 

for Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

to State and Local Governments. The 

amendment does not change or limit the 

potential eligibility of any small entity. 

For these reasons, the DOT certifies that 

this action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule does not impose unfunded 

mandates as defined by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). 

Indeed, it does not impose any 

mandates. This rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism 

Assessment) 

This rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, and the DOT has determined that 

this rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism assessment. 

The DOT has also determined that this 

rule does not preempt any State law or 

State regulation or affect the States’ 

ability to discharge traditional State 

governmental functions. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program Number [Insert 

number], [Insert Program Name]. The 

regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities [apply/ 

do not apply] to this program. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The DOT 

has determined that this rule does not 

contain collection of information 

requirements for the purposes of the 

PRA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The agency has analyzed this rule for 

the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321) and has determined that 

this rule does not have any effect on the 

quality of the environment. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 18 and 

29 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Grant programs, Allowable 

costs, Cooperative agreements. 

Issued this 21st day of September 2011, at 

Washington, DC. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

DOT amends, title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 18 and 19, as set forth 

below: 

PART 18—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO 

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 49 CFR 

part 18 continues to read as follows. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322(a). 

■ 2. In § 18.22, revise the table in 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 18.22 Allowable costs. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

For the costs of a Use the principles in— 

State, local or federal-recognized Indian tribal government .................... 2 CFR part 225. 

Private nonprofit organization other than an (1) Institution of higher 

education, (2) hospital, or (3) organization named in 2 CFR part 230, 

Appendix C, as not subject to that part.

2 CFR part 230. 

Institutions of Higher Education ............................................................... 2 CFR part 220. 

For-profit organizations other than a hospital, commercial organization 

or a non-profit organization listed in 2 CFR part 230, Appendix C, as 

not subject to that part.

48 CFR part 31. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, or uniform 

cost accounting standards that comply with cost principles acceptable to the Federal agency. 

PART 19—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND 

AGREEMENTS WITH INSTITUTIONS 

OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HOSPITALS, 

AND OTHER NON-PROFIT 

ORGANIZATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 49 CFR 

part 19 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322(a). 

■ 4. Revise § 19.27 to read as follows: 

§ 19.27 Allowable Costs. 

(a) Limitation on use of funds. Grant 

funds may be used only for: 

(1) The allowable costs of the 

grantees, subgrantees and cost-type 

contractors, including allowable costs in 

the form of payments to fixed-price 

contractors; and 

(2) Reasonable fees or profit to costtype contractors but not any fee or profit 

(or other increment above allowable 

costs) to the grantee or subgrantee. 

(b) Applicable cost principles. For 

each kind of recipient, there is a set of 

Federal principles for determining 

allowable costs. Allowability of costs 

shall be determined according to the 

cost principles applicable to the entity 

organization incurring the costs. The 

following chart lists the kinds of 

organization and the applicable cost 

principles: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 61599 

For the costs of a Use the principles in— 

State, local or federal-recognized Indian tribal government .................... 2 CFR part 225. 

Private nonprofit organization other than an (1) Institution of higher 

education, (2) hospital, or (3) organization named in 2 CFR part 230, 

Appendix C, as not subject to that circular.

2 CFR part 230. 

Institutions of Higher Education ............................................................... 2 CFR part 220. 

Hospitals ................................................................................................... 45 CFR part 74, Appendix E, ‘‘Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Research and Development under Grants and Contracts 

with Hospitals.’’ 

For-profit organizations other than a hospital, commercial organization 

or a non-profit organization listed in 2 CFR part 230, Appendix C, as 

not subject to that part.

48 CFR part 31. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, or uniform 

cost accounting standards that comply with cost principles acceptable to the Federal agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25416 Filed 10–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R1–ES–2008–0079; 92210–1117– 

0000–FY08–B4] 

RIN 1018–AW84 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for 

the Marbled Murrelet 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are revising 

designated critical habitat for marbled 

murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus 

marmoratus) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). On May 24, 1996, we 

designated 3,887,800 ac (ac) (1,573,340 

hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for the 

marbled murrelet in Washington, 

Oregon, and California. We are revising 

the designated critical habitat for the 

marbled murrelet by removing 

approximately 189,671 ac (76,757 ha) in 

northern California and southern 

Oregon from the 1996 designation, 

based on new information indicating 

that these areas do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat. The areas 

being removed from the 1996 

designation in northern California are 

within Inland Zone 2, where we have no 

historical or current survey records 

documenting marbled murrelet 

presence. Intensive surveys in southern 

Oregon indicate the inland distribution 

of the marbled murrelet is strongly 

associated with the hemlock/tanoak 

habitat zone, rather than distance from 

the coast. Accordingly, the areas being 

removed in southern Oregon are limited 

to those areas not associated with the 

hemlock/tanoak zone. The areas being 

removed are not considered essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

Approximately 3,698,100 ac (1,497,000 

ha) of critical habitat is now designated 

for the marbled murrelet. In this rule, 

we are also finalizing the taxonomic 

revision of the scientific name of the 

marbled murrelet from Brachyramphus 

marmoratus marmoratus to 

Brachyramphus marmoratus. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

November 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The final rule and map of 

critical habitat will be available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in the preparation of this final rule, are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 

102, Lacey, WA 98503–1273, telephone 

360–753–9440, facsimile 360–753–9008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

Berg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, at the above address, 

(telephone 360–753–9440, facsimile 

360–753–9008); Paul Henson, Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, 

Portland, OR 97266, telephone 503– 

231–6179, facsimile 503–231–6195; or 

Nancy Finley, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon 

Road, Arcata, CA 95521, telephone 707– 

822–7201, facsimile 707–822–8411. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

A final rule designating critical 

habitat for the marbled murrelet was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26256), and is 

available under the ‘‘Supporting 

Documents’’ section for this docket in 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R1–ES–2008–0079. It is our intent 

to discuss only those topics directly 

relevant to the revised designation of 

critical habitat for the marbled murrelet 

in this final rule. 

Species Description, Life History, 

Distribution, Ecology, and Habitat 

The marbled murrelet is a small 

seabird of the Alcidae family. The 

marbled murrelet’s breeding range 

extends from Bristol Bay, Alaska, south 

to the Aleutian Archipelago; northeast 

to Cook Inlet, Kodiak Island, Kenai 

Peninsula, and Prince William Sound; 

south along the coast through the 

Alexander Archipelago of Alaska, 

British Columbia, Washington, and 

Oregon; to northern Monterey Bay in 

central California. Birds winter 

throughout the breeding range and 

occur in small numbers off southern 

California. Marbled murrelets spend 

most of their lives in the marine 

environment where they forage in nearshore areas and consume a diversity of 

prey species, including small fish and 

invertebrates. In their terrestrial 

environment, the presence of platforms 

(large branches or deformities) used for 

nesting in trees is the most important 

characteristic of their nesting habitat. 

Marbled murrelet habitat use during the 

breeding season is positively associated 

with the presence and abundance of 

mature and old-growth forests, large 

core areas of old-growth, low amounts 

of edge habitat, reduced habitat 

fragmentation, proximity to the marine 

environment, and forests that are 

increasing in stand age and height. 

Taxonomy 

Two subspecies of the marbled 

murrelet were previously recognized, 

the North American murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus 

marmoratus) and the Asiatic murrelet 

(B. marmoratus perdix). New published 

information suggests that the Asiatic 

murrelet is a distinct species (Friesen et 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES