Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67067 

1As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to 

address Iowa’s December 22, 2010, request to 

approve revisions to the Title V program relating to 

greenhouse gases in a subsequent rulemaking. 

2 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(December 30, 2010). 

3 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

4 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

5 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

Dated: October 25, 2011. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28057 Filed 10–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0470, FRL–9484–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Iowa: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving an Iowa 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision relating to regulation of 

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under Iowa’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. This revision was 

submitted by the Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources (IDNR) to EPA on 

December 22, 2010. It is designed to 

align Iowa’s regulations with the ‘‘PSD 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Final Rule’’ published June 3, 2010, in 

the Federal Register. EPA is approving 

the revision because the Agency has 

determined that the SIP revision, 

already adopted by Iowa as a final 

effective rule, is in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting for 

GHGs. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule 

will be effective November 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R07–OAR– 

2011–0470. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning and Development 

Branch, Air and Waste Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, 

Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Iowa SIP, 

contact Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, Air 

and Waste Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Mr. Gonzalez’s 

telephone number is (913) 551–7041, 

and his email address is: 

gonzalez.larry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What final action is EPA taking in this final 

rule? 

II. What is the background for the PSD SIP 

approval by EPA in this final rule? 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What final action is EPA taking in 

this final rule? 

On December 22, 2010, IDNR 

submitted a request to EPA to approve 

revisions to the State’s SIP and Title V 

program to incorporate recent rule 

amendments adopted by the Iowa 

Environmental Protection Commission. 

These amendments establish thresholds 

for GHG emissions in Iowa’s PSD and 

Title V regulations at the same 

emissions thresholds and in the same 

time-frames as those specified by EPA 

in the ‘‘PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Final Rule’’ (75 FR 31514), 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule,’’ ensuring that smaller GHG 

sources emitting less than these 

thresholds will not be subject to 

permitting requirements for GHGs that 

they emit. The amendments to the SIP 

clarify the applicable thresholds in the 

Iowa SIP, address the flaw discussed in 

the ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 

Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans Final Rule,’’ 75 

FR 82536 (December 30, 2010) (the 

‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing Rule’’), and 

incorporate state rule changes adopted 

at the state level into the Federallyapproved SIP. 

On August 11, 2011, EPA published a 

proposed rulemaking to approve Iowa’s 

SIP revision. See 76 FR 49708. EPA did 

not receive any public comments on this 

proposal. In this final rule, pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA, EPA is 

approving these revisions into the Iowa 

SIP.1

II. What is the background for the PSD 

SIP approval by EPA in this final rule? 

This section briefly summarizes EPA’s 

recent GHG-related actions that provide 

the background for this final action. 

More detailed discussion of the 

background is found in the preambles 

for those actions. In particular, the 

background is contained in what we call 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,2 and in the 

preambles to the actions cited therein. 

A. GHG-Related Actions 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for this final action 

on the Iowa SIP. Four of these actions 

include, as they are commonly called, 

the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and 

‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding,’’ which 

EPA issued in a single final action,3 the 

‘‘Johnson Memo Reconsideration,’’ 4 the 

‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,’’ 5 and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ Taken together and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. EPA took this last 

action in the Tailoring Rule, which, 

more specifically, established 

appropriate GHG emission thresholds 

for determining the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG-emitting sources. 

In many states, such as Iowa, PSD is 

implemented through the SIP and so in 

December 2010, EPA promulgated 

several rules to implement the new GHG 

PSD SIP program. Recognizing that 

some states had approved SIP PSD 

programs that did not apply PSD to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

6Specifically, by notice dated December 13, 2010, 

EPA finalized a ‘‘SIP Call’’ that would require those 

states with SIPs that have approved PSD programs 

but do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to 

submit a SIP revision providing such authority. 

‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 75 

FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). EPA made findings 

of failure to submit in some states which were 

unable to submit the required SIP revision by their 

deadlines, and finalized FIPs for such states. See, 

e.g. ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation 

Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,’’ 75 

FR 81874 (December 29, 2010); ‘‘Action To Ensure 

Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation 

Plan,’’ 75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010). Because 

Iowa’s SIP already authorizes Iowa to regulate 

GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD 

requirements on January 2, 2011, Iowa is not subject 

to the SIP Call or FIP. 

7 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(December 30, 2010). 

8Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31517. 

9PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR at 82540. 

10 Id. at 82542. 

11 Id. at 82544. 

12 Id. at 82540. 

13This rulemaking does not act on any other 

revisions to the Iowa PSD rules occurring after the 

PSD rules approved by EPA in 2007. Therefore this 

rulemaking only addresses the 2010 revisions 

discussed herein, relating to the State’s adoption of 

the Tailoring Rule provisions. 

GHGs, EPA issued a SIP Call and, for 

some of these states, a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP).6

Recognizing that other states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that do 

apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for 

sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 

tpy of GHG, and that do not limit PSD 

applicability to GHGs to the higher 

thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA 

issued the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. 

Under that rule, EPA withdrew its 

approval of the affected SIPs to the 

extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. EPA based its action 

primarily on the ‘‘error correction’’ 

provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6). 

B. Iowa’s Actions 

On July 20, 2010, Iowa provided a 

letter to EPA, in accordance with a 

request to all states from EPA in the 

Tailoring Rule, with confirmation that 

the State of Iowa has the authority to 

regulate GHGs in its PSD program. The 

letter also confirmed Iowa’s intent to 

amend its air quality rules for the PSD 

program for GHGs to match the 

thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See 

the docket for this final rulemaking for 

a copy of Iowa’s letter. 

In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 

published on December 30, 2010, EPA 

withdrew its approval of Iowa’s SIP 

(among other SIPs) to the extent that the 

SIP applies PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions from 

sources emitting at levels below those 

set in the Tailoring Rule.7 As a result, 

Iowa’s current approved SIP provides 

the State with authority to regulate 

GHGs, but only at and above the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds; and requires 

new and modified sources to receive a 

Federal PSD permit based on GHG 

emissions only if they emit at or above 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

The basis for this SIP revision is that 

limiting PSD applicability to GHG 

sources at the higher thresholds in the 

Tailoring Rule is consistent with the SIP 

provisions that require assurances of 

adequate resources, and thereby 

addresses the flaw in the SIP that led to 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. 

Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) 

includes as a requirement for SIP 

approval that states provide ‘‘necessary 

assurances that the State * * * will 

have adequate personnel [and] funding 

* * * to carry out such [SIP].’’ In the 

Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher 

thresholds for PSD applicability to 

GHG-emitting sources on grounds that 

the states generally did not have 

adequate resources to apply PSD to 

GHG-emitting sources below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds,8 and no state, 

including Iowa, asserted that it did have 

adequate resources to do so.9 In the PSD 

SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that the 

affected states, including Iowa, had a 

flaw in their SIP at the time they 

submitted their PSD programs, which 

was that the applicability of the PSD 

programs was potentially broader than 

the resources available to them under 

their SIP.10 Accordingly, for each 

affected state, including Iowa, EPA 

concluded that EPA’s action in 

approving the SIP was in error, under 

CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA 

rescinded its approval to the extent the 

PSD program applies to GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds.11 EPA recommended that 

states adopt a SIP revision to 

incorporate the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that 

under state law, only sources at or above 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be 

subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding 

confusion under the Federally approved 

SIP by clarifying that the SIP applies to 

only sources at or above the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds.12

IDNR’s December 22, 2010, SIP 

submission establishes thresholds for 

determining which stationary sources 

and modification projects become 

subject to permitting requirements for 

GHG emissions under Iowa’s PSD 

program. Specifically, the SIP revision 

includes changes—which are already 

effective—to Iowa’s Administrative 

Code, revising the subrule 33.3(1) 

definition of ‘‘regulated New Source 

Review (NSR) pollutant’’ to specifically 

define the term ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

for the PSD program, and to define 

‘‘greenhouse gases (GHGs)’’ and ‘‘tpy 

CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e).’’ 

Additionally, the amendments to 

subrule 33.3(1) specify the methodology 

for calculating an emissions increase for 

GHGs, the applicable thresholds for 

GHG emissions subject to PSD, and the 

schedule for when the applicability 

thresholds take effect. 

Iowa is currently a SIP-approved State 

for the PSD program, and has previously 

incorporated EPA’s 2002 NSR reform 

revisions for PSD into its SIP. See 72 FR 

27056 (May 14, 2007).13 The changes to 

Iowa’s PSD program regulations are 

substantively the same as the Federal 

provisions amended in EPA’s Tailoring 

Rule. 

As part of its review of Iowa’s 

submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line 

review of Iowa’s proposed revision and 

has determined that it is consistent with 

the Tailoring Rule. 

III. Final Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is approving Iowa’s December 22, 

2010 revisions to the Iowa SIP, relating 

to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting 

sources. EPA has made the 

determination that this SIP revision is 

approvable because it is in accordance 

with the CAA and EPA regulations 

regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. The 

detailed rationale for this action is set 

forth in the proposed rulemaking 

referenced above, and in this final rule. 

Since EPA is finalizing its approval of 

Iowa’s changes to its air quality 

regulations to incorporate appropriate 

thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability into Iowa’s SIP, then 

section 52.822(b) of 40 CFR part 52, 

added in EPA’s PSD SIP Narrowing Rule 

to codify the limitation of its approval 

of Iowa’s PSD SIP to exclude the 

applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, is no longer necessary. In 

this action, EPA is also amending 

section 52.822(b) of 40 CFR part 52 to 

remove this unnecessary regulatory 

language. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67069 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves the State’s law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by the State’s 

law. For that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of 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 CAA; 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 final rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

program 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 amended 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 30, 2011. 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 petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 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 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 20, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

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 Q—Iowa 

■ 2. Section 52.820(c) is amended by 

revising the entry for ‘‘567–33.3’’ under 

Chapter 33 to read as follows: 

§ 52.820 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS

Iowa citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 33—Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) of Air Quality. 

* * * * * * * 

567–33.3 ........... Special construction permit requirement for major 

stationary sources in areas designated attainment 

or unclassified (PSD).

12/22/2010 10/31/2011 [Insert citation of publication]. 

* * * * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1The summary of the Report and Order and 

Second Report and Order, published August 2, 

2010, did not list 47 CFR 25.202(h)(3), 47 CFR 

25.214(d)(2), and 47 CFR 27.53(a)(10) among the 

rules requiring OMB approval. However, because 47 

CFR 25.202(h)(3), 25.214(d)(2), and 27.53(a)(10) 

contain information collection requirements that 

can not be enforced without OMB approval, the 

Commission sought OMB clearance for these rules. 

* * * * * 

§ 52.822 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.822 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (b). 

[FR Doc. 2011–27991 Filed 10–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 25 and 27 

[WT Docket No. 07–293; IB Docket No. 95– 

91; GEN Docket No. 90–357; RM–8610; FCC 

10–82] 

Operation of Wireless 

Communications Services in the 2.3 

GHz Band; Establishment of Rules and 

Policies for the Digital Audio Radio 

Satellite Service in the 2310–2360 MHz 

Frequency Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that certain 

rules adopted in the Operation of 

Wireless Communications Services in 

the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 07– 

293; Establishment of Rules and Policies 

for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite 

Service in the 2310–2360 MHz 

Frequency Band (WCS and SDARS) 

proceeding, to the extent it contained 

information collection requirements that 

required approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) was 

approved, September 26, 2011. 

DATES: Sections 27.14(p)(7), 27.72(b), 

27.72(c), 27.73(a), and 27.73(b) of the 

Commission’s rules published at 75 FR 

45058, August 2, 2010, are effective 

October 31, 2011. 

Sections 25.202(h)(3), 25.214(d)(2), 

and 27.53(a)(10) will be enforced 

beginning October 31, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Chang, Federal Communications 

Commission, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th 

St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 at (202) 

418–1339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. On May 20, 2010, the Commission 

published in the Federal Register, the 

summary of a Report and Order and 

Second Report and Order, which stated 

that upon OMB approval, it would 

publish in the Federal Register a 

document announcing the effective 

date. On September 26, 2011 the OMB 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection requirements 

contained in sections 25.202(h)(3), 

25.214(d)(2), 27.14(p)(7), 27.53(a)(10), 

27.72(b), 27.72(c), 27.73(a), and 27.73(b) 

of the Commission’s rules.1

2. On September 26, 2011, OMB 

approved the public information 

collection associated with these rule 

changes under OMB Control No. 3060– 

1159. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27454 Filed 10–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 10–51; FCC 11–155] 

Structure and Practices of the Video 

Relay Service Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; clarification. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission addresses three petitions 

for clarification or reconsideration of a 

previous order, and amends and 

clarifies the Commission’s rules 

regarding Internet-based 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

(iTRS) applicants for certification. 

DATES: Effective October 31, 2011, 

except for 47 CFR 64.606(a)(2)(ii)(A)(4) 

through (8) and (a)(2)(ii)(E) contains 

new or modified information collection 

requirements that require approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The Federal Communications 

Commission will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability 

Rights Office at (202) 559–5158 (VP) or 

email at Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov. For 

additional information concerning the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, contact 

Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Structure 

and Practices of the Video Relay Service 

Program, Memorandum and Opinion 

and Order (MO&O) and Order (Order), 

document FCC 11–155, adopted October 

17, 2011, and released October 17, 2011 

in CG Docket number 10–51. 

The full text of document FCC 11–155 

and copies of any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

Document FCC 11–155 and copies of 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554. Customers may contact BCPI, 

Inc. via its Web site http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com or by calling (202) 

488–5300. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). Document FCC 

11–155 can also be downloaded in 

Word or Portable Document Format 

(PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/ 

trs.html#orders. 

Synopsis 

In the MO&O in document FCC 11– 

155, the Commission addresses three 

petitions: 

A. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Expedited 

Petition for Clarification, CG Docket No. 

10–51 (Filed September 6, 2011) (Sprint 

Petition) 

1. Definition of Employees 

Sprint requests that the Commission 

clarify that communications assistants 

(CAs) who are trained by the provider, 

who are stationed at the facilities of the 

provider and who are directly under the 

provider’s supervision should be 

deemed to be employees of the provider, 

in satisfaction of the requirement that 

video relay service (VRS) providers 

employ their own CAs, regardless of 

whether or not they are hired directly by 

the provider. The Commission denies 

Sprint’s requested clarification. The 

Commission has consistently 

distinguished ‘‘employees’’ from 

‘‘subcontractors’’ and ‘‘contractors’’ in 

adopting rules and requirements 

governing the provision of VRS, and the 

Commission finds that Sprint’s 

proposed clarification would render 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES